Preiser v. Newkirk
422 U.S. 395 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legal challenge to a prisoner's transfer becomes moot if subsequent events, such as the prisoner's return to a comparable or better facility and official assurances against future adverse consequences, eliminate any reasonable expectation that the alleged wrong will be repeated.
Facts:
- Respondent Newkirk, a New York state prisoner, was transferred from a maximum security facility to Wallkill, a medium security institution with fewer restrictions and better rehabilitation programs.
- At Wallkill, Newkirk signed a petition advocating for the formation of a prisoners' 'union,' which created tension among inmates.
- A prison report identified Newkirk as one of the inmates canvassing for the 'union,' but he was not charged with any misconduct or given an opportunity to be heard.
- Shortly thereafter, on June 8, 1972, prison officials transferred Newkirk without a hearing to Clinton Correctional Facility, a maximum security institution with substantially worse conditions and located much farther from his family.
Procedural Posture:
- Newkirk and other inmates filed a lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison officials in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- During the proceedings, Newkirk was transferred back to the medium security facility, and a corrective memorandum was placed in his file.
- The District Court held that the initial transfer violated the Due Process Clause and entered a declaratory judgment in Newkirk's favor but denied an injunction.
- The prison officials, as appellants, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, where Newkirk was the appellee.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment with modifications, holding that the case was not moot.
- The prison officials, as petitioners, sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court, which directed the parties to also brief and argue the question of mootness.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a live case or controversy remain when a prisoner, who was transferred from a medium to a maximum security facility without a hearing, is subsequently returned to the medium security facility and then transferred to an even less restrictive minimum security facility, and a note is placed in his file stating the original transfer will not have adverse consequences?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Burger
No. The case is moot because there is no longer a live case or controversy as required by Article III of the Constitution. Newkirk's subsequent transfers back to Wallkill and then to an even less restrictive minimum security facility, coupled with the official notation in his file that the transfer was not disciplinary and would not affect parole, have eradicated the effects of the challenged action. There is no 'reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated' against Newkirk, and any fear of future harm is 'remote and speculative.' The case does not fall under the 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception to the mootness doctrine.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
Yes, the case is moot. However, this is only because the respondent did not file this case as a class action. By providing relief solely to the named plaintiff, the State of New York was able to moot the case before the substantive legal issue could be decided by the Court.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the strict application of the mootness doctrine, which prevents federal courts from issuing advisory opinions on issues where no live controversy exists. By vacating the lower court's decision and remanding with instructions to dismiss, the Supreme Court effectively erased the precedential value of the lower court's due process ruling. Justice Marshall's concurrence highlights a crucial procedural takeaway for civil rights litigation: filing a class action can be a vital strategy to prevent a defendant from mooting a case by providing relief only to the named plaintiffs.
Unlock the full brief for Preiser v. Newkirk