NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 18

- 3340

________________

CURR Y ROBINSON

, A ppellant

v.

KENNETH CAMERON, Superintendent; JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary of Department

of Corrections; VINCENT DEFELICE, Unit Manager; SHANNON SAGE

, Activities Manager

________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (W.D. Pa. 3:16

- cv

- 00044)
Dis trict Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

________________

Argued: July 8 , 2020

Before: M c KEE, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : August 6, 2020 )

________________

OPINION *

________________

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent.2 Jacob M. Abrahamson ( Argued ) University of Pennsylvania
School of Law
3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Joseph K. Hetrick Nicolas A. Novy
Dechert
2929 Arch Street

18 th Floor, Cira Centre Philadelphia, PA 19104 Attorneys for Appellant

Scott A. Bradley
Kemal A. Mericili

Da niel B. Mullen ( Argued ) Office of Attorney General Pennsylvania
1251 Waterfront Plact
Mezzanine Level Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Attorneys for Appellee

M c KEE, Circuit Judge

Curry Robinson appeals the grant of summary judgment dismissing his claim for

relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) and

First Amendment

. His suit only asked for injunctive relief and he is no longer in custody.

Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal as moot

.

Robinson sought injunctive relief based on being denied participation in the SCI

Houtzdale counseling program for sex offenders and his subsequent and continued3 categorization as a n individual who voluntar ily refuse d rehabilitation

. 1 In December

2019, Ro binson was released from custody after serving the maximum time allowed

under his sentence. 2

Although Robinson is no longer in custody and sought only injunctive relief, he

maintains his suit is not moot and that we can consider the merits. We disagree. W hen

an inmate seeks only equitable relief for claims arising from his imprisonment , the claims

become moot upon his release from custody if he cannot establish collateral

consequences redressable by a favorable judgment

. 3 Robinson has not identified any

such consequences.

There is , however, an exception to mootness for equitable claims like the one

asserted by Robinson. Mootness will not bar such an action when 1) the action’s duration

is “ too short to be fully litigated prior to its ces sation or expiration” and 2) whe n “there

[ is ] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the

same action again

. . .” 4

Here, the exception does not appl y . Robinson served sufficient time to allow his

claims to be full y litigated and a s he is no longer in custody

, we cannot afford him the

1 42 P A

. C ONS

. S TAT

. § 9718.1(c) directs the DOC to “ develop and provide [a] program of counseling or therapy ” for defendants convicted of certain enumerated offenses

. Appellant ’s Br. at 7.

2 Appellee s ’ Br. at 17.

3 See Spencer v. Kemna

, 523 U.S. 1 , 7

– 14 (199 8 ) ( explaining that a case becomes moot if events during the litigation prevent a court from redressing the plaintiff’s injury ).

4 I d. at 17 (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp. , 494 U.S. 472, 481 (1990)).4 equitable relief he is suing for

— even if his claim is otherwise meritorious. Similarly,

given his release from custody, we cannot presume that Robinson will be subject to the

“ same action ” again

. E ven if he were to reoffend and be returned to custody, we cannot

assume he would be housed in SCI

- Houtzdale

. Robinson concedes that the requirement

of “confession” that he complains of is not uniform througho ut DOC institutions where

he might be housed. Moreover, even if it was , it would be premature speculation for us

to adjudicate his claims now when we would not be able to grant him the only relief he

s eeks . A n injunction barring the DOC from requiring hi m to admit guilt before allowing

him into a sexual offender program is meaningless now that he is not in custody

.

As t here is no case or controversy 5 we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the

appeal as moot

.

5 Id. at 7.