Document: 429 U.S. 60 97 S.Ct. 342 50 L.Ed.2d 218 Ewell SCOTT, etc., petitioner,v.KENTUCKY PAROLE BOARD et al No. 74-6438 Supreme Court of the United States November 2, 1976 On writ certiorari to Appeals for Sixth Circuit. Nov. 1976. PER CURIAM. 1 It appearing that petitioner Scott has been granted parole by Kentucky Parole Board, judgment Circuit is hereby vacated, and case remanded consideration question mootness. 2 So ordered. 3 Mr. Justice STEVENS, with whom BRENNAN POWELL join, dissenting. 4 The decide whether any constitutionally mandated procedural safeguards apply release hearings. At such a hearing prisoner may be denied parole, or he released subject specified conditions. constitutional issue either outright denial, imposition conditions, kind impact on liberty must preceded "due process." extremely important,1 it fully briefed argued and, in my opinion, should now decided.2 5 postpones decision sending back its advice litigation moot. This action might appear supported Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 147, 96 347, 46 350, which became moot because petitioner's sentence terminated prior our decision, thus entirely eliminating his interest controversy board.3 case, however, not moot, as brief reference facts will demonstrate. 6 July 26, 1974, Scott, filed complaint alleging 1973 Board him parole. He contended denial deprived without due process law had provided required Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment.4 sought represent similarly situated prisoners requested an injunction requiring modify procedures other relief court consider appropriate. Without bothering effect service defendants, District dismissed complaint. affirmed unreported order this certiorari, 1031, 561, 404. 7 1975, shortly grant was paroled. respondent then suggested become But, points out reply, remains significant restraints have imposed if received claims Constitution requires. "close supervision," restrictive status entailing conditions addition those routine matter. One special condition requires undergo outpatient treatment at local mental health center. imposes restraint liberty. 8 Petitioner fair avoided condition. If favor merits, unquestionably would power objectionable removed unless accorded appropriate hearing. For reason retains direct immediate outcome litigation, merits. follows inexorably "It sufficient," noted Super Tire Engineering Co. McCorkle, 416 115, 125-126, 94 1694, 40 1, "that litigant show existence definite governmental policy adversely affected continues affect present interest." 9 Although I no doubt mootness correctly decided after proceedings remand run their course, nevertheless unfortunate. As dispositions each last three years demonstrate, underlying one capable repetition, yet review repeatedly evaded.5 Delay deciding merits only these litigants, but also pending every jurisdiction country. A suggestion can readily permitted far-reaching consequences. 10 respectfully dissent. Its manifest importance demonstrated (a) vast number decisions are made year; (b) person it; (c) extensive varying results, developed federal courts. conflict Circuits over more than evident. Compare 74-1899 (unpublished Jan. 15, 1975), held requirements applicable hearings, following: Brown Lundgren, 528 F.2d 1050 (C.A.5 1976) (due does apply); ex rel. Richerson Wolff, 525 797 (C.A.7 1975) applies extent written statement reasons given parole), cert. 425 914, 1511, 47 764; Bradford Weinstein, 519 728 (C.A.4 1974) applies), vacated 350; Childs U. S. Parole, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 268, 511 1270 (1974) given); Johnson Chairman, New York State 500 925 (C.A.2 given), sub nom. Regan Johnson, 419 1015, 95 488, 42 289; Scarpa 477 278 1973) (en banc) apply), mootness, 414 809, 79, 38 44, 501 992 (1973); Menechino Oswald, 430 403 1970) hearings; questioned supra ), denied, 400 1023, 91 588, 27 635. See Burton Ciccone, 484 1322 (C.A.8 (parole board follow own rules, implicitly holding apply). briefs argument discuss well opinion unambiguous: undisputed temporarily paroled December 18, ripened into complete from supervision March 25, 1975. From date forward plain whatever followed petitioners granting parole." U.S., 148, 347. rationale is, inapplicable who legal custody. In re Sturm, 11 Cal.3d 258, 264-265, 113 Cal.Rptr. 361, 364-365, 521 P.2d 97, 101 (1974); Ramer Saxbe, 173 83, 91-92, 522 695, 703-704 (1975); Workman Mitchell, 502 1201, 1208 (C.A.9 1974); Morales Schmidt, 489 1335, 1336 1973), adhered en banc, 494 85 1974). 35% 45% all paroles revoked. Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 479, 92 2593, 33 484. long parolee faces odds, continuing future contends encompassed adjudicatory-type hearing, including notice concerning issues information considering; access file rely upon; opportunity evidence arguments justify challenge interpret already before Board; representation attorney lay advocate; transcript summary testimony hearing; reasoned Board. hold applicable, not, entitled claimed safeguards. Cf. supra, 488-490, ; supra.

Category: 8