Opinion ID: 1354603
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Capable of Repetition, Yet Avoiding Review

Text: Demis also contends that his case is not moot because it falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that are capable of repetition, yet evading review. That exception, however, applies only where: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) (per curiam). See also Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n, ___ U.S. ___, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 2769, 171 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008); Rosales-Garcia v. Holland, 322 F.3d 386, 396 (6th Cir.2003). The second prong of the capable-of-repetition exception requires a reasonable expectation or a demonstrated probability that the same controversy will recur involving the same complaining party. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982) (per curiam) (quoting Weinstein, 423 U.S. at 149, 96 S.Ct. 347). [A]lthough other prisoners will undoubtedly face this same issue in the future, there is no reasonable expectation, and certainly no demonstrated probability, that Demis will be subject to the same action again. Brock, 256 Fed.Appx. at 751 n. 3 (emphasis in original). Consequently, this exception does not apply here.
Because Demis already has been released from custody, this Court can no longer offer any meaningful relief. Therefore, we hereby DISMISS Demis' appeal as moot.