U.S. ex rel. Graham v. U.S. Parole Com'n
| Decision Date | 21 May 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-8540,83-8540 |
| Citation | 732 F.2d 849 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. Robert GRAHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
John I. Spangler, III, Atlanta, Ga. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.
Myles E. Eastwood, Asst. U.S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for respondent-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before RONEY and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and MORGAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Robert Graham, the appellant, was convicted on federal charges of bank robbery and assault in 1973 and sentenced to fifteen years imprisonment. He filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in 1978 alleging that certain regulations of the United States Parole Commission violated federal statutory requirements and also violated the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution since they were promulgated after his conviction. The district court for the Northern District of Georgia dismissed the petition, but on appeal the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing with regard to the Constitutional claim. See United States ex rel. Graham v. United States Parole Commission 29 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir.1980). On remand, the district court granted the commission's motion for summary judgment, and Graham then filed this appeal. Several months later Graham was released from prison on parole, and the commission now argues that the case is moot. We agree.
In the proceedings below, Graham sought to establish that his chances for parole were significantly diminished by the commission's adoption and use of new regulations which changed the burden of proof for a prisoner seeking parole. These regulations were promulgated after Graham's conviction but they were applicable to his parole application, and thus Graham believes that the severity and burden of his punishment were increased in violation of the ex post facto clause. See Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 101 S.Ct. 960, 67 L.Ed.2d 17 (1981). Of course, Graham's ultimate objective in bringing this action was to obtain parole. Since he has been released on parole in the interim, we find there no longer is a case or controversy to litigate. A favorable decision on the merits would not entitle Graham to any additional relief, and therefore he no longer has a "personal stake in the outcome." O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494, 94 S.Ct. 669, 675, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974); Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975).
Graham disagrees with our decision and seeks to avoid dismissal of his petition by arguing the applicability of two exceptions to the general rule of mootness. First, he contends that there is a reasonable expectation that he will be subjected again to the same challenged...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Townes v. Jarvis
...Bureau of Prisons, 846 F.2d 550, 555 (9th Cir.1988); Vandenberg v. Rodgers, 801 F.2d 377, 378 (10th Cir.1986); Graham v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 732 F.2d 849, 850 (11th Cir.1984); Granville v. United States, 613 F.2d 125, 126 (5th Cir.1980); Brady v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 600 F.2d 234, 236 (9th C......
-
Johnson v. Riveland
...801 F.2d 377, 378 (10th Cir.1986); Corbett v. Luther, 778 F.2d 950, 953 (2d Cir.1985); see also United States ex rel Graham v. United States Parole Commission, 732 F.2d 849, 850 (11th Cir.1984) (habeas challenge to validity of parole regulations is moot because of petitioner's release on pa......
-
Flournoy v. McSwain-Holland
...(where prisoner only challenges his sentence, and not his conviction, Carafas does not apply); United States ex rel. Graham v. United States Parole Comm'n, 732 F.2d 849, 850 (11th Cir. 1984) (challenge to parole regulation mooted by release on parole as a favorable decision would not entitl......
-
Green v. Quintana
...as moot. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (1975); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974); United States ex rel. Graham v. U.S. Parole Commission, 732 F.2d 849 (11th Cir.1984). In any event, the terms and conditions placed on Petitioner's mandatory release did not violate Petitioner......