Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States
Calderon v. Moore
116 S. Ct. 2066
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
- Date
- 1996-06-17
- Topic
- general
holding that an appeal should be dis- missed as moot when “a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever” | holding that a habeas petition is not moot so long as the court could grant some relief | holding that an appeal should be dismissed as moot when “a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief VETERANS CONTRACTING GROUP v. UNITED STATES 3 whatever” | holding that “dismissals for lack of jurisdiction should be without prejudice” | stating that the availability of a “partial remedy” is “sufficient to prevent a case from being moot” (internal quotation marks omitted) | holding “a partial remedy” is sufficient to prevent a claim from being dismissed as moot | holding the “even the availability of a partial remedy is sufficient to prevent a case from being moot” | noting that a case is moot where no effectual relief whatsoever is possible | noting that a case is moot where no effectual relief whatsoever is possible | noting that an action is moot where a court "cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the [plaintiff]" and that "even the availability of a partial remedy" is sufficient to prevent mootness | “Simply stated, a case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties .lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” | an appeal should be dismissed as moot “when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ .... ” (citation omitted) | an appeal should be dismissed as moot "when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant `any effectual relief whatever' . . . ." (citation omitted) | “[E]ven the availability of a partial remedy is sufficient to prevent a case from being moot.” | appeal should be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of intervening event, court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief in favor of appellant | “[E]ven the availability of a ‘partial remedy’ is ‘sufficient to prevent [a] case from being moot.’” | criminal appeal not moot if there is “any potential benefit” to defendant (quoting United States v. Trotter, 270 F.3d 1150, 1152 (7th Cir. 2001)) | criminal appeal not moot if there is “any potential benefit” to defendant (quoting United States v. Trotter, 270 F.3d 1150, 1152 (7th Cir. 2001)) | “A case is moot if a decision will neither presently affect the parties’ rights nor have a more-than- speculative chance of affecting them in the future.” | “[A]n appeal should ... be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant.” | case should be dismissed as moot “when, by virtue of an 10 || intervening event, [the Court] cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the 11 [Plaintiff]” | “an appeal should ... be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant” | “If there 4 is no longer a possibility that an appellant can obtain relief for his claim, that claim is moot and must 5 be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.” | “[A]n appeal should therefore be- dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant.” | “an appeal should ... be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant” | “[W]hen, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant ‘any effectual relief whatever’ in favor 27 of the appellant,” the appeal should be dismissed as moot. | “Federal courts may not ‘give opinions on moot questions or abstract propositions[.]’ ” | “an appeal should therefore be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant” (internal quotations and citation omitted) | “[F]
Citator
- Cited by
- 130 opinions
Certiorari granted; reversed and remanded.
The State filed a notice of appeal and sought a stay of the District Court's order pending appeal, but its various stayPage 150applications were respectively denied by the District Court, the Ninth Circuit,56 F.3d 39(1995), and by JUSTICE O'CONNOR, in her capacity as Circuit Justice for the Ninth Circuit. The State accordingly set Moore for retrial, and simultaneously pursued its appeal of the District Court's order on the merits to the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals, observing that the "State of California has granted petitioner Charles Edward Moore, Jr., a new trial," dismissed the State's appeal as moot. App. A to Pet. for Cert.
It is true, of course, that mootness can arise at any stage of litigation,Steffelv.Thompson,415 U.S. 452,459, n. 10 (1974); that federal courts may not "give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions,"Millsv.Green,159 U.S. 651,653(1895); and that an appeal should therefore be dismissed as moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals cannot grant "any effectual relief whatever" in favor of the appellant,ibid. The available remedy, however, does not need to be "fully satisfactory" to avoid mootness.Church of Scientology of Cal. v.UnitedStates,506 U.S. 9,13(1992). To the contrary, even the availability of a "partial remedy," is "sufficient to prevent [a] case from being moot."Ibid.
In this case, to say the least, a "partial remedy" necessary to avoid mootness will be available to the State of California (represented here by petitioner). While the administrative machinery necessary for a new trial has been set in motion, that trial has not yet even begun, let alone reached a point where the court could no longer award any relief in the State's favor. Because a decision in the State's favor would release it from the burden of the new trial itself, the Court of Appeals is not prevented from granting "any effectual relief whatever" in the State's favor,Mills,supra, at 653, and the case is clearly not moot. We therefore grant respondent's motion to proceedin forma pauperis, grant petition for a writ of certiorari, reverse the judgment of the CourtPage 151of Appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.It is so ordered.Page 152