Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 9, 2025

Garing v. Miller

Judge
Kenneth Karas
Docket
7:24-cv-05932
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
HabeasCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

Garing v. Miller: Judge Karas dismissed Garing’s habeas petition as moot after Garing’s death and declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Who this affects

The order ended Stephen Garing’s federal habeas case against Mark Miller, Superintendent, after the court determined that Garing’s death made the case moot.

What happened

In Stephen Garing v. Mark Miller, Superintendent, Stephen Garing challenged conditions of confinement and his continued placement at a residential treatment facility after his incarceration ended. He filed the case without a lawyer under the federal law allowing challenges to state custody.

A magistrate judge recommended denying the petition after finding that Garing had died while the case was pending, making the case moot. Garing filed no objections, and the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas adopted the recommendation in full and dismissed the petition. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability, found that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, terminated the pending motion to dismiss, and closed the case.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Garing v. Miller · No. 7:24-cv-05932
Judge
Kenneth Karas
Date
Sept. 9, 2025

Background

Stephen Garing, representing himself, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal law that allows a person in state custody to challenge that custody in federal court. He challenged certain conditions of confinement and his continued post-incarceration confinement at a residential treatment facility at Greenhaven Correctional Facility.

The opinion states that Garing had been convicted of multiple state sex offenses and had reached the maximum expiration date of his incarceration on July 20, 2023. Because he had not secured housing complying with the Sexual Assault Reform Act, he was transferred to the residential treatment facility. The opinion also states that Garing died on or around May 7, 2025.

Procedural History

The court construed Garing’s submission as a § 2254 habeas petition and directed Superintendent Mark Miller to respond. Miller moved to dismiss the petition on December 20, 2024. Garing did not respond.

The court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Judith C. McCarthy. On June 9, 2025, Judge McCarthy issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the petition be denied because Garing’s death rendered the case moot. No objections were filed.

When no objections are filed to a recommendation on a dispositive motion, the district court reviews the recommendation for clear error. Judge Karas reviewed the recommendation and found no substantive error.

Ruling

The court adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and dismissed the petition. The dismissal was based on mootness: the recommendation concluded that Garing’s death while the petition was pending left no live habeas dispute for the court to decide.

Judge Kenneth M. Karas also ruled that a certificate of appealability would not issue because Garing had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motion, and closed the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.