1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 EDWARD NIKOLAYAN, Case No. LACV 16-8174-JLS (LAL) 11 Petitioner, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 12 v. HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT 13 SHAWN HATTON, Warden, 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 I. 18 PROCEEDINGS 19 On November 2, 2016, Edward Nikolayan filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a 20 Person in State Custody pursuant to

. On February 28, 2017, Respondent filed 21 an Answer to the Petition. On May 15, 2017, Petitioner filed a Traverse. On May 22, 2018, the 22 then-assigned Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to file supplemental briefing regarding the 23 application of the United States Supreme Court decision in McCoy v. Louisiana, --- U.S. ----, 24

,

(2018). On June 22, 2018, Petitioner filed a first 25 supplemental brief. On August 31, 2018, Respondent filed a supplemental brief. On September 26 13, 2018, Petitioner filed a second supplemental brief. 27 On January 22, 2019, this Court granted Petitioner’s request to stay these proceedings 1 | motion to voluntarily dismiss this action on grounds of mootness in light of the Los Angeles 2 | County Superior Court granting the relief requested, vacating the conviction, and setting the case 3 | for a new trial. 4 Il. 5 DISCUSSION 6 Mootness is a constitutionally imposed limit on the jurisdiction of the federal court. U.S. 7 | Const. Art. III, § 2. For a federal court to have jurisdiction over a case, there must be an actual 8 | case or controversy at the time the case is decided. See Preiser v. Newkirk,

, 9 | 95S. Ct. 2330,

(1975) (“The rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy 10 | must be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.”); see also 11 | Kittel v. Thomas,

(9th Cir. 2010) (as amended) (“The Constitution limits the 12 | jurisdiction of the federal courts to live cases and controversies, and as such, federal courts may 13 | not issue advisory opinions.”). “If there is no longer a possibility that a[] [litigant] can obtain 14 | relief for his claim, that claim is moot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” See 15 | Ruvalcaba v. City of Los Angeles,

(9th Cir. 1999); Am. Rivers v. Nat’] 16 | Marine Fisheries Serv.,

, 1123 (9th Cir. 1997) (as amended) (“If an event occurs 17 | that prevents the court from granting effective relief, the claim is moot and must be dismissed.”). 18 Here, Petitioner has received the relief requested and his conviction has been vacated. 19 | Because there remains no conviction for Petitioner to challenge and no relief for this Court to 20 | grant this action is moot. Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction over this matter and it must 21 | be dismissed. 22 Hil. 23 ORDER 24 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action 25 | for lack of jurisdiction. _ 26 i pce 7 DATED: March 22, 2021 ees eHED ots ag bee HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON 28 United States District Judge