REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CHARLES A. STAMPELOS, Magistrate Judge.

Petitioner initiated this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in December of 2009. Doc. 1. After an amended petition was filed, doc. 7,1 service was directed on April 13, 2010, and Respondent ordered to file an answer or other response. Doc. 11. After seven extensions of time were provided, Respondent filed a response on March 15, 2011, doc. 28, but Petitioner never filed a reply.

Recently an order was entered reassigning this case. Doc. 31. Petitioner's copy of that order has been returned to the Court as undeliverable. Doc. 32. The mail return is a memorandum from the Department of Corrections which advises that Petitioner Kurtis Wright, #N14304, is deceased. Doc. 32.

"The federal habeas statute gives the United States district courts jurisdiction to entertain petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are `in custody' . . . ." Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490, 109 S.Ct. 1923, 104 L.Ed.2d 540 (1989) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3)).2 Petitioner's death means he is no longer in the custody of the Florida Department of Corrections. Despite release from imprisonment, a case may not necessarily be moot and could still present a case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution if the petitioner could demonstrate some "collateral consequence" of the conviction challenged. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 983, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998), cited in Mattern v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 494 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2007). Because Petitioner will not face any collateral consequences of the challenged convictions in this case, the petition should be dismissed as moot.

In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, doc. 7, be DISMISSED as moot because Petitioner is no longer in custody.