NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

________________

No. 18-3340

________________

CURRY ROBINSON,

Appellant

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) 

District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson

________________

Argued: July 8, 2020

Before: McKEE, 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

18th Floor, Cira Centre

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Attorneys for Appellant

Scott A. Bradley

Kemal A. Mericili

Daniel B. Mullen (Argued)

Office of Attorney General Pennsylvania

1251 Waterfront Plact

Mezzanine Level

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Attorneys for Appellee

McKEE, 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 SCIHoutzdale counseling program for sex offenders and his subsequent and continued 
3

categorization as an individual who voluntarily refused rehabilitation.

1 In December 

2019, Robinson 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. When 

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 cessation or expiration” and 2) when “there 

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

same action again . . .”4

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

claims to be fully litigated and as he is no longer in custody, we cannot afford him the 

1 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 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 Appellees’ Br. at 17.

3 See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7–14 (1998) (explaining that a case becomes moot if 

events during the litigation prevent a court from redressing the plaintiff’s injury).

4 Id. 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. Even 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 throughout 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 

seeks. An injunction barring the DOC from requiring him to admit guilt before allowing 

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

As there is no case or controversy5 we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the 

appeal as moot. 

5 Id. at 7.