Weinstein et al. v. Bradford
423 U.S. 147 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a non-class action case to avoid mootness under the 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' doctrine, the challenged action must be too short to be fully litigated, and there must be a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.
Facts:
- Bradford was an inmate in the North Carolina prison system and became eligible for parole.
- Bradford believed the North Carolina Board of Parole's procedures for considering parole eligibility were unconstitutional.
- Bradford initiated a legal challenge against the Board regarding these procedures.
- While his lawsuit was pending, Bradford was granted temporary parole.
- Bradford's temporary parole subsequently ripened into a complete and final release from all supervision.
Procedural Posture:
- Bradford sued members of the North Carolina Board of Parole in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina.
- The District Court denied Bradford's request to certify the case as a class action and dismissed his complaint.
- Bradford, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, holding that Bradford was constitutionally entitled to certain procedural rights in parole considerations.
- The Board of Parole, as petitioners, successfully petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.
- After certiorari was granted, Bradford filed a suggestion of mootness with the Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a non-class action lawsuit, does the 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception to the mootness doctrine apply when the individual plaintiff is no longer subject to the challenged government policy and there is no demonstrated probability they will be subject to it again?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception to mootness does not apply in this case. In the absence of a class action, this doctrine is limited to situations where two elements combine: (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subjected to the same action again. While the parole consideration process may be short, the second element is not satisfied here. Respondent Bradford has been completely released from supervision, and there is no demonstrated probability that he will again be a prisoner subject to the Board's parole system. Because Bradford no longer has any present interest affected by the challenged policy, his case is moot.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the narrow application of the 'capable of repetition, yet evading review' exception to the mootness doctrine for individual plaintiffs. It reinforces the principle that the 'repetition' must be likely to occur to the same party, not just to others similarly situated. This decision highlights the procedural importance of class action certification for litigating issues that are likely to become moot for the named plaintiff but remain a live controversy for the larger group. By strictly adhering to the personal-stake requirement, the Court limits the judiciary's role to resolving concrete disputes rather than abstract legal questions, even if those questions are of public importance.
