ORDER
This appeal is dismissed with prejudice as moot. Appellant Warden has conceded, in his March 15, 2023 letter to the court (Docket No. 30), that this court could no longer provide meaningful relief to Arciga after the state courts complete vacatur of his original conviction. Although the Warden continued to contest mootness, he did so only on the ground that the district courts alleged legal error was capable of repetition, yet evading review. We are not persuaded by this argument as the purported error could be presented on appeal following a district courts rejection of a similar argument by another petitioner, or after a grant of habeas relief by a district court that was stayed by the district court or by this court, or after a grant of relief that was challenged by the warden in that case with sufficient promptness to permit this courts effective review before release was required under the terms of the district courts order, or under other circumstances. Cf. Cox v. McCarthy, 829 F.2d 800, 803–05 (9th Cir. 1987) (determining that the petitioners habeas challenge to the constitutionality of a state statute did not meet the capable-of-repetition exception, despite the likelihood that no similarly situated claimant could ever satisfy the exception, “[b]ecause other inmates subject to [the challenged statute] may bring a class habeas action to resolve the ex post facto claim[.]”).
Because the case became moot during the pendency of the appeal, we conclude that the district courts orders granting habeas relief should be vacated. 1 We remand the matter to the district court with instructions to dismiss Arcigas petition. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39–40, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
Each party to bear its own costs.
APPEAL DISMISSED; REMANDED with instructions to vacate and dismiss.
FOOTNOTES
1
. This vacatur should not be read as expressing an opinion on the merits of the district courts orders.