Court Opinion

ID: 9707823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:21:59.065097+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:38.364276
License: Public Domain

TERRY, Associate Judge,
concurring:
I join in Judge Belson’s opinion for the court, except for footnote 1. In my mind there can be no doubt that this appeal is moot because the civil protection order expired last July. I am unwilling to treat this case as presenting the type of controversy that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” as that concept has evolved over the years. In particular, I do not think this case meets the second of the two criteria set forth in Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 348, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975), because I cannot assume there is a “reasonable expectation” or “demonstrated probability” that Mr. Cloutterbuck will again be the subject of a civil protective order, notwithstanding that two such orders have been issued against him in the past.
Nevertheless, I would not dismiss this appeal as moot because there is a reasonable likelihood that this court may have dissuaded Mr. Cloutterbuck from taking steps to prevent its becoming moot. As Judge Belson points out, appellant made a motion to expedite this appeal, which this court denied on December 4, 1987. Thereafter appellee and amicus curiae filed their briefs with reasonable promptness,1 but because of the congested state of our calendar, this case was not scheduled for argument until October 11,1988, more than two months after the civil protective order expired. Our refusal to expedite this appeal, despite the very real possibility that it might become moot in the near future, may *1088well have misled Mr. Cloutterbuck into believing — mistakenly—that he could not renew, or seek reconsideration of, his motion to expedite. In my view, this is the kind of “unique” circumstance that prompted the Supreme Court in Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215, 217, 83 S.Ct. 283, 285, 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962), and again in Thompson v. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 375 U.S. 384, 387, 84 S.Ct. 397, 398, 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964), to hold that an appeal otherwise subject to dismissal should be heard on its merits. See also, e.g., Center for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 251 U.S.App.D.C. 82, 88 & n. 11, 781 F.2d 935, 941 & n. 11 (1986). On that basis I join my colleagues in deciding this appeal on the merits, despite its mootness, and I concur without reservation in the rest of Judge Belson’s opinion.

. Appellant had already filed his brief a couple of weeks before filing his motion to expedite the appeal,