Title: Pearson v. Martin

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

355 S.E.2d 496 (1987)
319 N.C. 449
Ernest C. PEARSON
v.
James G. MARTIN, in his capacity as Governor of the State of North Carolina; Lacy H. Thornburg, in his capacity as Attorney General of the State of North Carolina; Joyce A. Hamilton; Donald W. Overby; Fred M. Morelock; and Thomas W. Steed, Jr., in his capacity as President of the Wake County Bar Association.
No. 643PA86.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 5, 1987.
Hunter, Hodgman, Greene, Donaldson, Cooke & Elam by Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Greensboro, for plaintiff-appellant.
Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by Jean A. Benoy, Sr. Deputy Atty. Gen., and Isham B. Hudson, Jr., Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for defendant-appellees.
MARTIN, Justice.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on 29 August 1986 in the Superior Court of Wake County. The pertinent allegations of the complaint are:
Further, plaintiff swears in his affidavit:
Summary judgment for defendants was entered on 17 September 1986.
Plaintiff seeks to have the requirement of N.C.G.S. § 7A-142 that the persons nominated by the Bar to fill a vacancy for district court judge be "members of the same political party as the vacating judge" declared unconstitutional only for the purpose of permitting him to be included in the selection process for a candidate to succeed to the seat vacated by Judge Narley Cashwell, and for no other reason.
When plaintiff filed his complaint on 29 August 1986, the Bar meeting that he seeks to participate in had been held on 25 August 1986. This Court's determination of this appeal cannot grant plaintiff the relief he seeks. The action was moot when it was filed 29 August 1986 and must be dismissed.
In re Peoples, 296 N.C. 109, 147-48, 250 S.E.2d 890, 912 (1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 929, 99 S. Ct. 2859, 61 L. Ed. 2d 297 *498 (1979) (citations omitted). That this action was brought as a declaratory judgment action does not alter this result. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, jurisdiction does not extend to questions that are altogether moot. "The statute does not require the court to give a purely advisory opinion which the parties might, so to speak, put on ice to be used if and when occasion might arise." Tryon v. Power Co., 222 N.C. 200, 204, 22 S.E.2d 450, 453 (1942).
This decision is in accord with the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. See, e.g., Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 102 S. Ct. 1181, 71 L. Ed. 2d 353 (1982) (prisoner's action challenging pretrial bail provisions of state constitution held moot where plaintiff already convicted of crime); Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 96 S. Ct. 347, 46 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1975) (prisoner's action for procedural parole rights held moot when plaintiff had been released from parole system); Thorpe v. Housing Authority of Durham, 393 U.S. 268, 89 S. Ct. 518, 21 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1969) (court does not sit to decide abstract, hypothetical, or contingent questions). Plaintiff's action is moot and this appeal is hereby dismissed.
The judgment of the Superior Court of Wake County is vacated, and this action is remanded to that court for the entry of an order dismissing this action as moot.
APPEAL DISMISSED; VACATED AND REMANDED.