Third Circuit disposition — 092020np-pdf

1
HLD-118 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 09-2020
___________
MARVIN JOHN COBB,
Appellant
vs.
WARDEN JOHN YOST
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 07-CV-00105)
District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
July 31, 2009
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
Opinion filed
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Marvin John Cobb sued the warden of F.C.I. Loretto, seeking injunctive
and declaratory relief based on claims of inadequate medical treatment and deliberate

-- 1 of 4 --

Although Cobb styled his complaint as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant1
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the District Court properly characterized it as a civil suit about
prison conditions.
2
indifference to serious medical needs. Specifically, he requested a declaratory judgment1
that his rights under the Fifth and Eighth Amendments, as well as various federal statutes,
were violated, and an injunction that he be prescribed Percocet and Clonazepem while in
prison. He also sought a temporary release for medical treatment.
While his case was pending (and before his complaint was served on the
defendant), Cobb was released from custody. The defendant filed a suggestion of
mootness, to which Cobb objected (with his objections, he also brought to the District
Court’s attention a dispute about the payment of a medical bill). The Magistrate Judge
recommended dismissing Cobb’s complaint as moot. Cobb responded, arguing that his
case was not moot because he might return to prison. The District Court adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s opinion and construed the suggestion of mootness as a motion to
dismiss the complaint and granted it. Cobb appeals.
We will summarily affirm because no substantial question is presented on
appeal. See L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s order. See Gould Elecs., Inc. v.
United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000).
As the District Court concluded, Cobb’s case was mooted by his release
from prison. A federal court does not have the power to decide moot questions. See

-- 2 of 4 --

Cobb’s unrelated complaint of something that happened post-filing in another2
jurisdiction by another defendant does not change the outcome, as the District Court also
concluded.
3
North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971). Article III requires a live case or
controversy throughout the entire litigation; if no live controversy exists, the court must
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 974
(3d Cir. 1992). In general, an inmate’s claim for injunctive and declaratory relief
becomes moot on his release from prison. See Sutton v. Rasheed, 323 F.3d 236, 248 (3d
Cir. 2003); Abdul-Akbar v. Watson, 4 F.3d 195, 206 (3d Cir. 1993) (holding that once a
prisoner was released, he could have no continuing interest in the prison policies he was
challenging).
As the District Court concluded, with Cobb out of prison, it takes little
analysis to conclude that Cobb’s request for injunctive relief (for a medical release and
for medications in prison) is moot. Whether his request for declaratory relief is moot
takes a little more analysis. The answer depends on whether his case presents a question
“capable of repetition yet evading review.” Abdul-Akbar, 4 F.3d at 206. We conclude
that his case does not fall within the narrow limits of the exception to the mootness
doctrine. Speculation that Cobb could return to prison does not overcome the mootness
doctrine. See id. at 207; see also L.A. v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 (1983) (assuming that2
persons “‘conduct their activities within the law and so avoid prosecution and
conviction’”) (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974)).

-- 3 of 4 --

For these reasons, the District Court did not have before it a question that
could affect Cobb’s rights. Accordingly, the District Court properly concluded that
Cobb’s complaint should be dismissed as moot.

-- 4 of 4 --