# Reply Brief — Hewitt v. Helms > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0106%3A04 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Reply Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1987 - **Citation:** 482 U.S. 755 ## Text _" eae ae (% FILED 5 No. 85-1630 MAY 14 1D IN THE SUPREME COURT jJSSEBH F. SPANIOL, JR, UNITED STATES CLERK 1985 October Tern, LOWELL D. HEWITT, Supt.; B. B. KYLER, CO III; R. E. STOTELMYER, Major; B. K. SMITH, Counselor III; K. R. HILEMAN, Farm Manager; D. R. ERHARD, Deputy Supt. for Treatment; T. W. HENRY, Director of Treatment; W. MATEER, C. I., Manager Petitioners Vv. AARON HELMS, Respondent REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI LeROY S. ZIMMERMAN Attorney General ALLEN C. WARSHAW ANDREW S. GORDON Executive Deputy Chief Deputy Attorney General Attorney General Director, Chief, Litigation Commonwealth Section Agencies Legal Services Division FRANCIS R. FILIPI GREGORY R. NEUHAUSER Senior Deputy Senior Deputy Attorney General Attorney General Counsel of Record Attorneys for Petitioners Office of Attorney General 15th Fl., Strawberry Square Ne Harrisburg, PA 17120 XK \\ (717) 783-1471 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES... .2ceeeees ARGUMENT RESPONDENT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A PREVAILING PARTY BECAUSE HE HAD NO STANDING TO REQUEST EQUITABLE RELIEF....... CONCLUSION. wc cccsccccces coccccece PAGE ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES PAGE(S) City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) ..cccccces 3,4,5 O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. GES UEP se scccesouseseuese + Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. SOS CLO TO Po bb ccctcsetédivieds 3 STATUTE Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act, 42 U.S.C. wAta IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1985 No. 85-1630 LOWELL D. HEWITT, et al., Petitioners Vv. AARON HELMS, Respondent REPLY TO RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ARGUMENT RESPONDENT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A PREVAILING PARTY BECAUSE HE HAD NO STANDING TO REQUEST EQUITABLE RELIEF. In opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari, respondent Helms makes several contentions most of which have been addressed by petitioners in the petition. One argument, however, necessitates a reply. Helms takes issue with peti- tioners' argument on mootness and standing. He places great weight on the proposition that, under state law, a parolee continues to be under the legal authority of the state corrections officials even after release from incarceration. From this premise, he argues that he possessed the requisite standing to seek | declaratory and injunctive relief even after his parole, To the extent that this —)- position reflects a correct statement of Pennsylvania law insofar as applicable to the state's authority to revoke parole, it nevertheless ignores impor- tant factual circumstances in this case. There simply was no live case or controversy between Helms and peti- tioners, with the exception of his claim for damages for past violations, by the time of the first appeal to the Court of Appeals. He lacked standing at that point to request, much less recover, equitable relief. City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983); Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362 (1976). In Lyons, the Court reiterated that past exposure to illegal conduct does not, in and of itself, present a live case or contro- versy regarding injunctive relief "se unaccompanied by any continuing, present ~ ie adverse effects." Lyons, 461 U.S. at 102, citing O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495-96 (1974). Just as in Lyons and O'Shea, the prospect that respondent here would be subjected to the same real and immediate threat of repeated injury was, at best, extremely remote by the time of his parole. It had to be “assumed" that Helms would “conduct [his] activities within the law and so avoid prosecution and conviction as well as exposure to the challenged course of conduct said to be followed by petitioners," Lyons, 461 U.S. at 103, quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.s. at 497. Simple anticipation that, at some point, Helms would be re-arrested, re-convicted and returned to a Pennsyl- vania prison where he would be cited for misconduct supported by information from a confidential informant, is too specu- lative to support standing. Lyons, 461 U.S. at 103-05. Without the requisite standing, it hardly can be argued that Helms was a prevailing party on 4 claim for egquit- able or declaratory relief. To be a prevailing party, he must be able to contend that his claims for relief other than damages, for which petitioners were immune, presented a live case or contro- versy. For the Court of Appeals to find prevailing party status, in the absence of standing to request the prerequisite underlying relief, is to elevate a claim of “abstract injury" to Article II! jurisdiction. Certainly, this is not what the Congress intended when it enacted the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Awards Act, 42 U.S.C. §1988. -—S- CONCLUS ION For these reasons. and the reasons expressed in the petition for writ of certiorari, the petition should be granted and, upon review, the judg- ment of the Court of Appeals reversed. Respectfully submitted, LeROY S. ZIMMERMAN Attorney General ALLEN C, WARSHAW Executive Deputy Attorney General Director, Commonwealth Agencies Legal Services Division ANDREW S. GORDON Chief Deputy Attorney General Chief, Litigation Section GREGORY R. NEUHAUSER Senior Deputy Attorney General FRANCIS R. FILIPI Senior Deputy Attorney General Counsel of Record Office of Attorney General ti) ey Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 783-1471 A) — --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0106%3A04. Public record. Not legal advice.