Carstaphen v. Luneke

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
ANTONIO CARSTAPHEN,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN DOUG LUNEKE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 1:25-CV-422
JUDGE JOHN ADAMS
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JENNIFER DOWDELL ARMSTRONG
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. 	INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Antonio Carstaphen (“Petitioner”) filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on
March 3, 2025. (ECF No. 1.) Respondent filed a return of writ on June 17, 2025. (ECF No. 7.)
And Petitioner filed a traverse on October 20, 2025. (ECF No. 10.)
On December 8, 2025, Petitioner’s counsel filed a Notice of Suggestion of Death and
Mootness. (ECF No. 11). And on December 9, 2025, Petitioner’s counsel filed an Amended Notice
of Suggestion of Death and Mootness to correct a typographical error and confirm that Respondent
does not dispute the suggestion of death and mootness. (ECF No. 12).
II. 	LAW AND ANALYSIS
“A federal habeas corpus petition becomes moot on the death of the prisoner.” Parker v.
Nagy, No. 2:20-cv-13439, 2022 WL 669335, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 15, 2022) (citing Hailey v.
Russell, 394 U.S. 915 (1969) (dismissing a motion for leave to file a habeas corpus petition on the
suggestion of mootness due to the petitioner’s death); Scott v. California, 364 U.S. 876 (1969)
(dismissing a motion for a writ of certiorari on the suggestion of counsel for the petitioner of the
death of the petitioner); Rosa v. Rewerts, No. 1:18-CV-940, 2020 WL 132374, at *1 (W.D. Mich.
Case: 1:25-cv-00422-JRA Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/09/25 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

2
Jan. 13, 2020) (collecting cases for the principle that “[t]he death of an inmate during the pendency
of his habeas petition renders the action moot and deprives the Court of jurisdiction.”)
Because it is undisputed that Petitioner died during the pendency of his habeas petition,
this Court is deprived of jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, I RECOMMEND that this Court
DISMISS Petitioner’s habeas petition (ECF No. 1).
III. 	RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, I RECOMMEND that this Court DISMISS Petitioner’s habeas
petition (ECF No. 1) because Petitioner’s death has rendered the petition moot, and the Court no
longer has jurisdiction.
IV. 	NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
Local Rule 72.3(b) of this Court provides:
Any party may object to a Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,
recommendations or report made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof, and
failure to file timely objections within the fourteen (14) day period
shall constitute a waiver of subsequent review, absent a showing of
good cause for such failure. Such party shall file with the Clerk of Court,
and serve on the Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections which
shall 	specifically 	identify 	the 	portions 	of 	the 	proposed 	findings,
recommendations, or report to which objection is made and the basis for
such objections. Any party may respond to another party’s objections
within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof. The
District Judge to whom the case was assigned shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings
or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
Magistrate Judge. The District Judge need conduct a new hearing only in
such District Judge’s discretion or where required by law, and may
consider the record developed before the Magistrate Judge, making a
determination on the basis of the record. The District Judge may also
receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the
Magistrate Judge with instructions.
Id. (emphasis added).
Case: 1:25-cv-00422-JRA Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/09/25 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

3
Failure to file objections within the specified time may forfeit the right to appeal the
District Court’s order. Berkshire v. Beauvais, 928 F.3d 520, 530-531 (6th Cir. 2019).
Objections must be specific and not merely indicate a general objection to the entirety of the
report and recommendation; a general objection has the same effect as would a failure to
object. Howard v. Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).
Stated differently, objections should focus on specific concerns and not merely restate
the arguments in briefs submitted to the magistrate judge. “A reexamination of the exact same
argument that was presented to the Magistrate Judge without specific objections ‘wastes
judicial resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purpose of the Magistrates
Act.’” Overholt v. Green, No. 1:17-CV-00186, 2018 WL 3018175, at *2 (W.D. Ky. June 15,
2018) (quoting Howard). The failure to assert specific objections may in rare cases be
excused in the interest of justice. See United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878-79
(6th Cir. 2019).
Dated: 	December 9, 2025 	/s Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong
JENNIFER DOWDELL ARMSTRONG
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:25-cv-00422-JRA Doc #: 13 Filed: 12/09/25 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>