KERMIT ALEXANDER V. USDC-CASF, No. 19-70232 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 16 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: KERMIT ALEXANDER; BRADLEY WINCHELL, ______________________________ No. 19-70232 D.C. Nos. KERMIT ALEXANDER; BRADLEY WINCHELL, ORDER Movants-Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent, MICHAEL ANGELO MORALES; TIEQUON AUNDRAY COX; ALBERT GREENWOOD BROWN; MITCHELL CARLTON SIMS; DAVID A. RALEY; ROBERT G. FAIRBANK; KEVIN COOPER; SCOTT LYNN PINHOLSTER; WILLIAM CHARLES PAYTON; ROYAL HAYES; RICHARD DELMER BOYER; RONALD LEE DEERE; HARVEY LEE HEISHMAN III; ANTHONY J. SULLY; ALBERT CUNNINGHAM; DOUGLAS S MICKEY; HECTOR JUAN AYALA; RICHARD GONZALES SAMAYOA; RAYNARD PAUL CUMMINGS; 3:06-cv-00219-RS 3:06-cv-00926-RS CONRAD ZAPIEN; RONALDO AYALA; JOHN LOUIS VISCIOTTI, PlaintiffsReal Parties in Interest, RALPH M. DIAZ, Acting Secretary for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; RONALD DAVIS, Warden, Warden of San Quentin Prison; GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of the State of California, DefendantsReal Parties in Interest. Petition for Writ of Mandamus Submitted September 16, 2020* San Francisco, California Before: W. FLETCHER, FORREST**, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges. Petitioners, who are family members of the victims of plaintiffs Michael Morales and Tiequon Cox, ask this court for a writ of mandate or prohibition. Petitioners sought an order requiring the district court to (1) vacate all stays of execution; (2) conditionally refrain from issuing further stays or injunctions of * The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** Formerly known as Danielle J. Hunsaker. 2 executions or preparations; and (3) include in any future stay order an expiration period of 90 days. After Petitioners filed their petition in this court, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order imposing a moratorium on all executions, repealing California’s lethal-injection regulations, and closing the death chambers. In light of the Executive Order, all Plaintiffs and all Defendants filed a stipulated dismissal in the district court. Thereafter, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Petitioner’s mandamus petition.1 (Dkt. No. 41). Petitioners do not oppose this motion. We therefore GRANT the motion to DISMISS this petition. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees. The petition is DISMISSED. 1 Before filing their motion to dismiss, Defendants filed a request for judicial notice regarding their answer to Petitioner’s writ of mandamus. (Dkt. No. 17). Because we dismiss Petitioners’ appeal as moot, we need not rule on the request for judicial notice. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.