Summary
dismissing appeal as moot where suit sought only injunctive relief and inmate was no longer in custody
Summary of this case from Falcey v. Bucks Cnty.Opinion
No. 18-3340
08-06-2020
CURRY ROBINSON, Appellant v. KENNETH CAMERON, Superintendent; JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary of Department of Corrections; VINCENT DEFELICE, Unit Manager; SHANNON SAGE, Activities Manager
Jacob M. Abrahamson (Argued) University of Pennsylvania School of Law 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Joseph K. Hetrick Nicolas A. Novy Dechert 2929 Arch Street 18th Floor, Cira Centre Philadelphia, PA 19104 Attorneys for Appellant Scott A. Bradley Kemal A. Mericili Daniel B. Mullen (Argued) Office of Attorney General Pennsylvania 1251 Waterfront Plact Mezzanine Level Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Attorneys for Appellee
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(W.D. Pa. 3:16-cv-00044)
District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson Before: McKEE, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges OPINION Jacob M. Abrahamson (Argued)
University of Pennsylvania
School of Law
3400 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Joseph K. Hetrick
Nicolas A. Novy
Dechert
2929 Arch Street
18th Floor, Cira Centre
Philadelphia, PA 19104
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.
Attorneys for Appellant Scott A. Bradley
Kemal A. Mericili
Daniel B. Mullen (Argued)
Office of Attorney General Pennsylvania
1251 Waterfront Plact
Mezzanine Level
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Attorneys for Appellee McKEE, Circuit Judge
Curry Robinson appeals the grant of summary judgment dismissing his claim for relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA") and First Amendment. His suit only asked for injunctive relief and he is no longer in custody. Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal as moot.
Robinson sought injunctive relief based on being denied participation in the SCI-Houtzdale counseling program for sex offenders and his subsequent and continued categorization as an individual who voluntarily refused rehabilitation. In December 2019, Robinson was released from custody after serving the maximum time allowed under his sentence.
42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 9718.1(c) directs the DOC to "develop and provide [a] program of counseling or therapy" for defendants convicted of certain enumerated offenses. Appellant's Br. at 7.
Appellees' Br. at 17.
Although Robinson is no longer in custody and sought only injunctive relief, he maintains his suit is not moot and that we can consider the merits. We disagree. When an inmate seeks only equitable relief for claims arising from his imprisonment, the claims become moot upon his release from custody if he cannot establish collateral consequences redressable by a favorable judgment. Robinson has not identified any such consequences.
See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7-14 (1998) (explaining that a case becomes moot if events during the litigation prevent a court from redressing the plaintiff's injury).
There is, however, an exception to mootness for equitable claims like the one asserted by Robinson. Mootness will not bar such an action when 1) the action's duration is "too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration" and 2) when "there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the same action again . . ."
Id. at 17 (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Lewis v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 481 (1990)).
Here, the exception does not apply. Robinson served sufficient time to allow his claims to be fully litigated and as he is no longer in custody, we cannot afford him the equitable relief he is suing for—even if his claim is otherwise meritorious. Similarly, given his release from custody, we cannot presume that Robinson will be subject to the "same action" again. Even if he were to reoffend and be returned to custody, we cannot assume he would be housed in SCI-Houtzdale. Robinson concedes that the requirement of "confession" that he complains of is not uniform throughout DOC institutions where he might be housed. Moreover, even if it was, it would be premature speculation for us to adjudicate his claims now when we would not be able to grant him the only relief he seeks. An injunction barring the DOC from requiring him to admit guilt before allowing him into a sexual offender program is meaningless now that he is not in custody.
As there is no case or controversy we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal as moot.
Id. at 7. --------