Document: 422 U.S. 395 95 S.Ct. 2330 45 L.Ed.2d 272 Peter PREISER, etc., et al., Petitioners,v.James NEWKIRK. No. 74-107. Argued Jan. 20, 1975. Decided June 25, Syllabus After being transferred, without explanation or hearing, from a medium security to maximum prison in New York because of his involvement conflict among inmates concerning petition for prisoners' 'union' at the former prison, respondent brought suit under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and (4) 42 § 1983 against petitioner officials, seeking declaratory injunctive relief. The District Court, granting relief part, ruled that transfer violated Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment, it was made any opportunity be heard. Court Appeals affirmed with some modification, holding, inter alia, not mooted by fact returned prior Court's ruling. Respondent later transferred minimum will soon eligible parole. Held: In light respondent's return does present case controversy as required Art. III Constitution but is now moot must dismissed, since original complaint there no reasonable expectation wrong repeated question presented fall within category harm capable repetition, yet evading review. Pp. 401-403. 499 F.2d 1214, vacated remanded. Hillel J. Hoffman, City, petitioners. Daniel Pochoda, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 Newkirk has been an inmate system conviction murder second degree 1962. He had initially confined Ossining Correctional Facility and, subsequently, Attica Facility, Green Haven Auburn Facility. These facilities were institutions1 time them are located different parts York. April 1971, nine years after initial confinement, he Wallkill institution. found, seriously disputed here, facility 'unique,' advantages over other correctional institutions fewer restrictions physical restraints well more comprehensive rehabilitation program. 2 Early 1972, aimed formation circulated Wallkill. This event produced vociferous prisoners. Tension inmates, according stemmed part hostility existing prisoner representative committee toward movement. administration, however, did forbid actively discourage circulation petition. administrators did, monitor level unrest on clash opinions On 2, general meeting which discussed loudly contending factions; dispersed peacefully, incidents violence. attend this meeting, previously signed proposed constitution immediately received fellow inmate, it, passed along. 3 A report prepared assistant deputy superintendent identified one who canvassing charge him violation regulations misconduct. report—including its naming Newkirk—was apparently based information officers given superintendent. afforded give account. following day, 6, called central office Department Corrections arranged several including Newkirk, state corrections system. effected 8. summoned infirmary informed transferred. 4 Clinton conditions population substantially those At Clinton, cells locked, access library recreational limited, programs less extensive. requested truck-driving assignment when arrived understood waiting list. then assigned residence same wage earned Since Newkirk's family lived 80 miles 300 visits difficult. 5 three four prisoners United States Southern York, pursuant (4), 1983, State Commissioner Services. They judgment transfers laws injunction ordering their Wallkill, expunging all record transfer, prohibiting future hearing. denied preliminary set trial accelerated basis. Prior commencement trial, two plaintiffs released dismissed insofar related them. During another plaintiff released, action well; subsequently institution also memorandum placed file explained nature noted disciplinary reasons, have bearing eligibility parole decisions time-allowance committee. 6 held Amendment court entered such heard connection further declared adverse could taken punishment administered transfer. It should scope permissible behavior circumstances would warrant future. time, refused prayer summary 'not persuaded threat sufficiently great . .' v. Butler, 364 F.Supp. 497, 504 (1973); concluded 'in posture delineated merit adjudication,' id., 500. Noting 'an explanatory note included plaintiff, whether reference discipline, .,' 504, request expunged file. 7 modification. 1214 (CA2 1974). that, suffers 'substantial loss' result 'he entitled basic elements rudimentary due process, i. e., notice heard,' 1217, formal proceeding consequences. proceedings case, relied changed living conditions, job assignment, training opportunities. However, although agreeing advance publication 'rules,' might 'would serve salutary function avoiding misunderstanding resentment 1219, requiring officials draw up rules place unnecessary straight jacket [sic].' Ibid. It, therefore, modified remove requirement order. Although specifically noting '[e]ven remained subject new ..' Furthermore, despite reliance good-faith assurances effect possibility, 'entitled judicial decree effect.' 8 We granted petitioners' writ certiorari question: 'Whether institution, imposition punishment, reasons heard'?2 petition, directed parties brief argue mootness. 419 894, 172, 138 (1974). 9 All developments challenged read only decision Appeals, Edgecombe City. July 1975.3 10 exercise power depends existence controversy. As North Carolina Rice, 404 244, 246, 92 402, 404, 30 413 (1971), federal neither render advisory nor 'to decide questions cannot affect rights litigants before them.' Its judgments resolve "a real substantial admitting specific through conclusive character, distinguished advising what law upon hypothetical facts." Ibid., quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. Haworth, 227, 241, 57 461, 464, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937). last Term, Brennan, Steffel Thompson, 415 452, 459 n. 10, 94 1209, 1216, 39 505 (1974): 'The rule cases actual extant stages review, merely filed. See, e. g., Roe Wade, 410 [113,] 125, 93 705, 713, 35 147 [(1973)]; SEC Medical Comm. Human Rights, 403, 577, 560 (1972); Munsingwear, Inc., 340 36, 71 104, 36 (1950).' 11 Maryland Casualty Pacific Co., 312 270, 61 510, 85 826 (1941), difficulty fashioning precise test universal application determining become moot, basically, 'the each facts alleged, circumstances, show controversy, between having legal interests, sufficient immediacy reality issuance judgment.' Id., 273, S.Ct., 512 (emphasis supplied). class sought damages. noted, supra, ruling back months. No during period. notation expressly stating 'should determinations Board Parole allowance committee.' above, therefore clear correction authorities harbor animosity Newkirk. us than '[m]ere voluntary cessation allegedly illegal conduct,' Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., 393 199, 203, 89 361, 364, 21 344 (1968), where we leave '[t]he defendant free old ways.' W. T. Grant 345 629, 632, 73 897, 97 1303 (1953). complaint, "no repeated," 633, Aluminum America, 148 416, 448 1945). 12 Any subjective fear entertain again similar alleged suffering consequences 1972 indeed remote speculative hardly casts 'continuing brooding presence.' concerned Super Tire Engineering McCorkle, 416 115, 122, 1694, 1698, 40 SCRAP, 412 669, 688-689, 2405, 2416, 37 254 (1973), 'pleadings something ingenious academic conceivable. allege perceptibly harmed agency action, can imagine affected agency's action.' Similarly, while always possibility disregard good regard 'such contingencies afford basis our passing substantive issues [Newkirk] Hall Beals, 396 45, 49, 90 200, 202, 24 214 (1969). events bears out genuine claim injury possible 'of U.S., 513. matter days. See supra 401. 13 conclude 'capable review,' Terminal ICC, 219 498, 515, 31 279, 283, 55 310 (1911); 113, (1973). Accordingly, vacate remand directions 39, 106 (1950). 14 so ordered. 15 Vacated 16 DOUGLAS dissents holding mootness affirm below. 17 MARSHALL, concurring. 18 I join reason action. result, releasing named plaintiffs, transferring finally lesser acted, thereby moot. six designated institutions: Attica, Auburn, Haven, Ossining, Great Meadow. Eight facilities, portions thereof, Adirondack, Bedford Hills, Coxsackie, Elmira, Eastern, Fishkill, Tappon, Six others Albion, Bayview, Edgecombe, Parkside, Rochester, Taconic. There camps. NYCRR, pt. 100, 100.1-100.94. Pet. Cert. 2. Rule 23(1)(c). Tr. Oral Arg. 7, 22; Brief 10.

Category: 8