“Where the question sought to be adjudicated has been mooted by developments subsequent to filing of the complaint, no justiciable controversy is presented.”
How later courts described this case
- “Where the question sought to be adjudicated has been mooted by developments subsequent to filing of the complaint, no justiciable controversy is presented.”
- “The question of mootness is . . . one which a federal court must resolve before it assumes jurisdiction [to address the merits of a complaint].”
- “When the magistrate provides such notice and a party still fails to object to the findings of fact and those findings are adopted by the district court the party may not challenge them on appeal in the absence of plain error or manifest injustice.”
- “[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
CLARENCE MARTIN, )
Reg. No. 11858-002, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-CV-1061-MHT
)
STATE OF ALA. BD. OF PARDONS & )
PAROLES, )
)
Defendant. )
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
I. INTRODUCTION
This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action is pending before the court on a complaint filed by
Clarence Martin, a federal inmate, in which he challenges the constitutionality of a parole
violation warrant issued against him by the defendant. Martin seeks only injunctive relief
by either removal or disposition of this warrant. Doc. 1 at 7.
The defendant, with permission of the court, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
in which it argues that Martin has received the requested relief. Specifically, the defendant
maintains “that Martin’s parole violation warrant was rescinded by Defendant on April 24,
2018 [but] for unknown reasons, the Alabama Department of Corrections (“ADOC”) failed
to remove this warrant from their system. ADOC has now removed the warrant from its
system and has received confirmation of the removal from the Federal Bureau of Prisons.”
Doc. 7 at 6 7. The defendant therefore argues that this case is now moot. Doc. 7 at 7.
–
Based on the foregoing, the court issued an order that on or before February 18,
2020 Martin “show cause (i) why the motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss should
not be granted, and (ii) why the instant case should not be dismissed as moot because he
has received the requested relief. “ Doc. 8. As of the present date, Martin has filed no
response to this order. The court therefore concludes that this case should be dismissed as
moot.
II. DISCUSSION
Federal courts do not sit to render advisory opinions. North Carolina v. Rice, 404
U. S. 244, 246 (1971). An actual controversy must exist at all times when the case is
pending. Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459 n.10 (1974). In cases where the only
relief requested is injunctive in nature, it is possible for events subsequent to the filing of
the complaint to make the matter moot. National Black Police Assoc. v. District of
Columbia, 108 F.3d 346, 350 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (change in statute); Williams v. Griffin, 952
F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991) (transfer of prisoner); Tawwab v. Metz 554 F.2d 22, 23 (2nd
Cir. 1977) (change in policy).
The mootness doctrine derives directly from the case-or-controversy limitation
because “an action that is moot cannot be characterized as an active case or controversy.”
Adler v. Duval County Sch. Bd., 112 F.3d 1475, 1477 (11th Cir. 1997). A claim becomes
moot when the controversy between the parties is no longer alive because one party has no
further concern in the outcome. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975); Flast v.
Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968) (“Where the question sought to be adjudicated has been
mooted by developments subsequent to filing of the complaint, no justiciable controversy
is presented.”); Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969) (“[A] case is moot when
the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in
the outcome.”). “Put another way, ‘a case is moot when it no longer presents a live
controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.’” Florida Ass’n of
Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1216
–
17 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting Ethredge v. Hail, 996 F.2d 1173, 1175 (11th Cir. 1993)).
Article III of the United States Constitution confers jurisdiction on the district courts to
hear and determine “cases” or “controversies.” Federal courts are not permitted to rule
upon questions which are hypothetical in nature or which do not affect the rights of the
parties in the case before the court. Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 US. 472, 477
(1990).
In Saladin v. Milledgeville, 812 F.2d 687, 693 (11th Cir. 1987), the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals determined:
A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer “live” or the parties
lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the litigation, such as
where there is no reasonable expectation that the violation will occur again
or where interim relief or events have eradicated the effects of the alleged
violation.
“This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial
proceedings, trial and appellate.” Id. When actions occur subsequent to the filing of a
lawsuit and deprive the court of the ability to give the plaintiff meaningful relief, then the
case is moot and must be dismissed. See, e.g., Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45, 48 (1969) (per
curiam). In such instances, dismissal is required because mootness is jurisdictional. See
Florida Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, 225 F.3d at 1227 n.14 (citing North Carolina v. Rice,
404 U.S. 244, 246, (1972) (“The question of mootness is . . . one which a federal court
must resolve before it assumes jurisdiction [to address the merits of a complaint].”). “Any
decision on the merits of a moot case or issue would be an impermissible advisory opinion.”
Id. at 1217 (citing Hall, 396 U.S.at 48).
The parole violation warrant Martin challenges has been rescinded and removed
from his files, the precise relief sought by Martin. Consequently, the request for injunctive
relief, the only relief sought by Martin, is moot. County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S.
625, 631 (1979); Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 82 (1982); Cotterall v. Paul, 755
–
F.2d 777, 780 (11th Cir. 1985) (past exposure to potential illegal conduct does not in and
of itself show a pending case or controversy regarding injunctive relief if unaccompanied
by any continuing present injury or real and immediate threat of repeated injury).
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case
be DISMISSED as moot.
On or before March 17, 2020 the parties may file objections to the
Recommendation. A party must specifically identify the factual findings and legal
conclusions in the Recommendation to which the objection is made. Frivolous, conclusive,
or general objections to the Recommendation will not be considered.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and legal conclusions set
forth in the Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge shall bar a party from a de novo
determination by the District Court of these factual findings and legal conclusions and shall
“waive the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based on unobjected-to
factual and legal conclusions” except upon grounds of plain error if necessary in the
interests of justice. 11TH Cir. R. 3-1; see Resolution Trust Co. v. Hallmark Builders, Inc.,
996 F.2d 1144, 1149 (11th Cir. 1993) (“When the magistrate provides such notice and a
party still fails to object to the findings of fact and those findings are adopted by the district
court the party may not challenge them on appeal in the absence of plain error or manifest
injustice.”); Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790, 794 (11th Cir. 1989).
DONE this 3rd day of March, 2020.
/s/ Charles S. Coody
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE