Opinion ID: 2924504
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Capable of Repetition

Text: Mr. Ind. also relies on another exception to mootness, whether the issue is a wrong capable of repetition which will evade review. In contrast to the voluntary cessation exception, which places the burden of proof on the defendant, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the issue is a wrong capable of repetition yet evading review. Jordan, 654 F.3d at 1035. The exception is “narrow,” McAlpine, 187 F.3d at 1216, and “is only to be used in exceptional situations,” -11- Jordan, 654 F.3d at 1035 (citations and quotation marks omitted). To avail himself of the exception, a plaintiff must establish two requirements: “(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the same action again.” Id. (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975) (per curium)). The Supreme Court further amplified this standard in Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (1982) (per curium), stating: The Court has never held that a mere physical or theoretical possibility was sufficient to satisfy the test stated in Weinstein. If this were true, virtually any matter of short duration would be reviewable. Rather we have said that there must be a “reasonable expectation” or a “demonstrated probability” that the same controversy will recur involving the same complaining party. Id. at 482 (quoting Weinstein, 423 U.S. at 149). Our case of McAlpine v. Thompson, 187 F.3d 1213 (10th Cir. 1999), is illustrative. There, an inmate member of the Native American Church filed a petition for mandamus seeking an order requiring the prison warden to provide peyote and other ceremonial items for church ceremonies in his prison. Id. at 1214. The district court dismissed the claim on its merits, and McAlpine appealed. While the appeal was pending, McAlpine completed his term of incarceration and was released on parole. Id. at 1214-15. The warden contended the inmate’s release rendered his claim moot, but the former inmate argued that -12- the acts he complained of were “capable of repetition, yet evading review” because he was subject to revocation of his parole and reincarceration. Id. at 1215. We held that McAlpine failed to establish either of the two required elements for the exception. With respect to the first element, he had not shown that there would be insufficient time for him to obtain review of his claim in federal court in the event he found himself in prison again and raised the same issue. Id. at 1217. And with respect to the second element, we declined to assume he would repeat the misconduct that previously landed him in prison, citing Honig. Id. at 1218. We need not decide in this case whether Mr. Ind has established that there would be insufficient time to challenge the two-book limitation if he were ever returned to administrative segregation because he has not met the second prong of the “capable of repetition” exception to the mootness doctrine. As discussed above, Mr. Ind has not shown a reasonable likelihood he will be subjected to the same treatment again because, pursuant to our precedent, we decline to assume he will repeat the misconduct that previously got him sent to administrative segregation. See Honig and McAlpine, supra. The Fourth Circuit reached the same conclusion in Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2007). There, Kenyatta Incumaa, an inmate serving a life sentence in South Carolina state prison, brought a § 1983 action against the -13- South Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”), alleging its policy barring inmates in the Maximum Security Unit (“MSU”) from receiving publications via the mail violated his First Amendment rights. He sought declaratory relief and an injunction against enforcement of the ban. Id. at 284. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the SCDC on the merits, finding the ban did not violate Incumaa’s constitutional rights. Id. Shortly after Incumaa filed his opening appellate brief, he was released from maximum security. Id. at 285. Ultimately, the SCDC moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing Incumaa was no longer housed in the maximum security unit and there was no indication he would ever be subjected to the challenged policy again, absent some sufficiently recalcitrant behavior on his part. Id. As here, Incumaa invoked both the voluntary cessation and “capable of repetition” exceptions. Id. at 288-89. With respect to the voluntary cessation exception, the court found no indication in the record that the SCDC removed Incumaa from maximum security in an effort to avoid judicial review of the challenged policy, or that the release was “anything but normal operation of the review procedures used in making the determination to move an inmate out of the MSU.” Id. at 288. It further stated: [W]e must assume, from the lack of any evidence to the contrary, that the SCDC promoted Incumaa to the SMU because he ceased his bad behavior. Clearly, this is not the kind of “voluntary cessation” that the exception covers. More to the point, it is clear that if Incumaa is ever returned to the MSU, it will be of his own doing, and not because the SCDC believes that the specter of litigation has passed. -14- Id. (emphasis in original). The court also rejected Incumaa’s argument that the issue was one which, although moot, was capable of repetition yet evading review. It held that Incumaa had not carried his burden of establishing there was a reasonable expectation he would be subject to the publications ban again in the future because “assignment to the MSU is directly tied to an inmate’s bad behavior, so Incumaa thus ‘holds the keys’ to his remaining free from the unit.” Id. at 289. The court concluded that “[b]ecause Incumaa will only find himself in the MSU again if he bucks prison policy, and because we presume that he will abide by those policies, . . . the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ exception to mootness does not apply in this case.” Id. Here, as in Incumaa, Mr. Ind has failed to carry his burden of establishing the “capable of repetition” exception to the mootness doctrine.