## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary6,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT

__________________________ BR I AN L . BR OWN, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. W A R D E N , W ar den, U SP-Fl or ence , R es pondent- A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 3154 (D . K ansas) ( D. Ct . No . 0 6 - c v - 3 0 6 9 - RDR)

____________________________ ORDE R DI S M I S S I NG AP P EA L B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. B ri an L . B row n is a p ri so n er inc arc era ted in the U n it ed S tat es P en it en ti ary i n Fl or ence , C ol or ado. O n M ar ch 6, 2006, he fi l ed a pro se pet i t i on s eeki ng a

“ W rit o f A ss ista n c e fo r [ a ] W rit o f H a b e a s C o rp u s A d T e stifica n d u m ” p u rsu a n t to 28 U . S. C . §§ 1651 and 2241 i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof K an sas. H e re q u ested a c o u rto rde r req u ir ing fe d era l pri so n o ffici als t o tr an sp o rt hi m t o appea r i n K ans as s t at e cour ton M ay18- 19, 2006, conce r ni ng t heB ro w nc laim s h is p re se n c e w a s re qu ire dto argu e th e tran sf e r o f c u sto dysh o u ld 1 be to hi s rel atives , buthe fai l ed to pres entanyevi dencethathe uti l i zed the numerous p ro c e dura l s a f

e gu ard s a f

f o rd e db yK an s a s law to a c h ie v e h is g o a ls . SeeK AN . S TAT . A NN . § 38- 1582( d) ( appointm entof an attorneyforanyparentw ho fai l s to appear) , § 38- 1553 ( s tipul ati ons ) , § 38- 1559 (noti ce) , § 38- 1584 (prefe renceforpl ace m entw ith w i l l ing relativ es up o nterm inationo f p are ntalri g hts) , an d§ 3 8 -15 9 1 (ap p ea l) . A M o tio nf

o r R e c o n sid e ratio nf

iledm o re th antend ay s a f tere ntryo f

ju d g m e nt is 2 g e n e ra lly c o n s tru e da s am o tio nf o r r e lie f un d e r Ru le 6 0 (b ). W

e itz v . L o v e la c eHe a lth Sys . , I nc. , 2 1 4 F . 3 d1 1 7 5 , 1 1 7 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ).

- 2- te rm in a tio n o f

B ro w n ’s p a re n ta l r ig h ts . See In i nt er es ts of A l ys a Fr akes , Br o wn C o u n ty D istri ct C o u rt , N o . 0 4 -JC -6. O n M arc h 2 8 , 2 0 0 6 , the d istri ct co u rt 1 gr ant ed B r ow n l eave t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris and di s m i s s ed t he ac t i on w i t hout pr ej udi ce. T he di s t r i ctcour tdet er m i ned he w as notent i t l ed t o a w r i tof habea s corpus ad t es t i fi candum or a w r i tof m andamus c oncerni ng anyfede r al o fficia ls in h is s tate c iv il m a tter p u rsu a n t to § § 1 6 5 1 a n d 2 2 4 1 , an d f u rth e r h e ld t he co urt ’s m and am us authori t ydid not ext end t o st at e offi ci al s. B r ow n t hen fi l ed a M ot i on forR econs i der at i on on A pr i l 14, 2006, w hi ch th e d istric t co u rt c o n sid e re d u n d e r R u le 6 0 (b ) o f th e F e d e ra l R u les o f

C iv il Pr ocedur e, r ei t er at i ng hi s ar gum ent s . T he di s t r i ctcour tdeni ed t he mot i on and 2 B r ow n appea l ed on M ay22, 2006, and t hen fi l ed a “ M ot i on forSt ayPendi ng R evi ew ‘ E m er gency , ’ ” on M ay23, 2006. N ot i ng t he dat e of the s t at e hea r i ng had pas s ed, w e i s s ued an or derr equi r i ng B r ow n t o s how caus e i n w r i t i ng byJ ul y14, 20 06 , w hy his app eal shou l d n ot be di sm i ssed as m oo t . W e recei ved his res po nse on A ugus t21, 2006 but t he ce r t i fi cat e of s er vi ce i ndi cat ed i tw as pl ace d i n t he- 3-

m ai l s y s t em of Jul y11, 2006. T he pos t m ar k w as dat ed A ugus t15, 2006. W e t hen or der ed B r ow n t o expl ai n t he di s cr epanc yand i f he a t t r i but ed t he del ayt o pr i s on a u th o rities , to file a g rie v a n c e a n d su b m it co p ies o f th e g rie v a n c e w ith h is re sp o n se . A lth o u g h B ro w n w a s o rd e re d to re sp o n d b yO c to b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 6 , w e d id n o t r ec eive h is r ep lyu n ti l O ctob er 3 1 , 2 0 0 6 . B row n ’s su b m issi o n , h o w ev er, cont ai ned s uffi ci entj us t i fi cat i on fort he del ayi n bot h hi s i ni t i al t ar di nes s and t he late n e ss o f

h is c u rre n t fili n g . B ro w n a lso a sk e d fo r a n e x ten sio n o f tim e to r ece i ve and f

i l e t he admi ni s t r at i ve r es ol ut i on of hi s gr i evanc e. T he s ubm i s s i on of t he ul t i m at e r es ol ut i on i s notnece s s ar y , as w e w i l l cons i derhi s r es pons e t o our i ni t i al O r dert o Show C aus e. “A cas e i s m ootw hen t he i s s ues pr es ent ed ar e no l onger‘ l i ve’ ort he par t i es l ack a l egal l ycogni zabl e i nt er es ti n t he out come. ” Ha in v . Mu lli n , 327 F. 3d 1177, 1180 ( 10t h C i r . 2003) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . B r ow n’ s r epl yconce des t he hea r i ng w as hel d on J une 6, 2006. B r ow n’ s onl yar gum enti s t hat“a mot i on fora new hear i ng i s bei ng fi l ed i n t hi s m at t er . ” ( R es pons e at2. ) B r ow n does not al l ege the mot i on w as actual l yfi l ed nordoes he ment i on fur t herm at t er s pendi ng i n t h i s c a s e i n h i s l a t e r p l e a d i n g . Un d e rt h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s p r e s e n t e d h e r e , Br o wn c a n n o lo n g e r b e n e fit f ro m a ru lin g in h is fa v o r. L e w is v . C o n t’ l B a n kC o r p ., 494 U . S. 472, 477 ( 1990) ( not i ng t hatt he par t ys eeki ng r el i ef “ m us thave s uffe r ed, or b e th re a ten e d w ith , an a c tu a l inju ry. . . li k e lyto b e re d re ss e d b ya fa v o ra b le ju d icia l d e c isio n ” ); A r agon v. Shanks , 144 F. 3d 690, 692 ( 10t h C i r . 1998)- 4-

( concl udi ng cas e w as m ootbeca us e a favor abl e dec i s i on w oul d nots hor t en pet i t i oner ’ s pr obat i on per i od) . B r ow n’ s l ack of r es pons e t o ourO r dert o Show C au se w aive s an yarg u m en t th at his claim rem ains “li v e” eit h er b ec au se a n injury w i l l be r edr es s ed bya fa vor abl e dec i s i on orhi s cas e fa l l s w i t hi n t he “‘ capa bl e of r epet i t i on, y etevadi ng r evi ew ’ exce pt i on t o t he moot nes s doct r i ne. ” Ha in , 327 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 0 (“ [ F ]o r th is e x c e p tio n to a p p ly , tw o p re re q u isites m u st b e sa tisfied : ( 1) t he dur at i on of t he cha l l enged a ct i on m us tbe t oo s hor tt o be ful l yl i t i gat ed pr i or t o i t s ces s at i on orexpi r at i on; and ( 2) t her e mustbe a r eas onabl e expe ct at i on th a t th e s a m e c o m p la in in g p a rt yw ill b e s u bje c te d to th e s a m e a c tio n a g a in .” ). T h is a c tio n is m o o t. T h e a p p e a l is D IS M IS S E D . E n ter ed b y th e C o u rt: T err ence L. O ’ B ri en U ni t ed St at es C i r cui tJ udge