Case Name: Calvin BOLDING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony C. NEWLAND; et al., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-05-21
Citations: 10 F. App'x 519
Docket Number: No. 00-15877; D.C. No. CV-99-2317-WBS
Parties: Calvin BOLDING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony C. NEWLAND; et al., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 10
Pages: 519–519

Head Matter:
Calvin BOLDING, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony C. NEWLAND; et al., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-15877.
D.C. No. CV-99-2317-WBS.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 14, 2001.
Decided May 21, 2001.
Before PREGERSON, FERNANDEZ, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Sea Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
This appeal from a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. Because the district court's ninety-day preliminary injunction has expired and requested medical care was provided to the appellee, the appeal is moot. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2) (preliminary injunction issued under this section expires within 90 days); see also University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 398, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981) (whether a preliminary injunction should have been issued is moot where its essential terms have been carried out); Cammermeyer v. Perry, 97 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir.1996) (the "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine does not apply).
DISMISSED.
. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.