Opinion

Whitney v. Brown

  • 840 F.2d 19
  • 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 1831
  • 1988 WL 12219
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Filed
Feb 16, 1988
Status
Unpublished
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 16.7%

The opinion

840 F.2d 19

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

Harry WHITNEY, John Barnes, Michael Smith, and Mark Ernst,

Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

Robert BROWN, Director of Michigan Department of

Corrections, Dale Foltz, Warden of Michigan State

Prison, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 87-1451.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 16, 1988.

Before KEITH, WELLFORD and DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

This matter is before the court upon consideration of the plaintiffs-appellees' motion to dismiss the defendants-appellants' appeal from the district court's April 15, 1987, order. That order permitted Jewish inmates at the State Prison of Southern Michigan to celebrate the Passover Seder in the central complex of the institution on April 19, 1987. The defendants-appellants have failed to respond to the motion to dismiss.

2

A review of the record indicates that the defendants-appellants appealed a similar order in 1986 (appeal number 86-1394). That appeal was dismissed by this court on August 12, 1986, because the appeal did not satisfy the case or controversy requirement.

3

The instant appeal presents the same situation that this court previously considered in August of 1986. The Passover Seder to which the appealed order applied was held on April 19, 1987. No "case or controversy" exists. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 , reh'g denied, 410 U.S. 959 (1973); Rettig v. Kent City School Dist., 788 F.2d 328, 330 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 92 L.Ed.2d 711 (1986). The court further concludes that the appeal does not present the exceptional situation where an issue is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Id.; Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 498, 515 (1911).

4

It is ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be granted.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.