Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-10.pdf
Page Number: 11

Cite as:  564 U. S. ____ (2011) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

cases  that  are  not  moot  because  the  underlying  dispute
is  “capable  of  repetition,  yet  evading  review.”  See,  e.g., 
Nebraska  Press  Assn.  v.  Stuart,  427  U. S.  539,  546–547 
(1976) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Moreover,  the  underlying  facts  make  this  case  unlike 
DeFunis  v.  Odegaard,  416  U. S.  312  (1974)  (per  curiam), 
and  St.  Pierre  v.  United  States,  319  U. S.  41  (1943)  (per 
curiam),  two  cases  that  respondents  believe  require  us  to 
find  this  case  moot  regardless.    DeFunis  was  moot,  but 
that is because the plaintiff himself was unlikely to again
suffer  the  conduct  of  which  he  complained  (and  others
likely  to  suffer  from  that  conduct  could  bring  their  own
lawsuits).  Here petitioner himself is likely to suffer future 
imprisonment. 

St.  Pierre  was  moot  because  the  petitioner  (a  witness 
held in contempt and sentenced to five months’ imprison-
ment) had failed to “apply to  this Court for a stay” of the
federal-court  order  imposing  imprisonment.  319  U. S.,  at 
42–43.  And, like the witness in St. Pierre, Turner did not 
seek  a  stay  of  the  contempt  order  requiring  his  imprison-
ment.  But  this  case,  unlike  St.  Pierre,  arises  out  of  a 
state-court proceeding.  And respondents give us no reason
to  believe  that  we  would  have  (or  that  we  could  have) 
granted  a  timely  request  for  a  stay  had  one  been  made. 
Cf.  28  U. S. C.  §1257  (granting  this  Court  jurisdiction  to 
review  final  state-court  judgments). 
In  Sibron,  we  re-
jected a similar “mootness” argument for just that reason. 
392  U. S.,  at  53,  n. 13.    And  we  find  this  case  similar  in 
this respect to Sibron, not to St. Pierre. 

III 

A 

We must decide whether the Due Process Clause grants
an  indigent  defendant,  such  as  Turner,  a  right  to  state-
appointed  counsel  at  a  civil  contempt  proceeding,  which
may  lead  to  his  incarceration.    This  Court’s  precedents