Unpublished Disposition, 936 F.2d 578 (9th Cir. 1991)
Annotate this CaseDarrel Lee McCABE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.William L. CALLAHAN, State of Washington Department ofCorrections, Jerry T. Williford, United StatesParole Commission, Karen A. Schroeder,United States Bureau ofPrisons, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 89-35798.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted April 8, 1991.Decided June 20, 1991.
Before PREGERSON, NOONAN and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM*
Darrel Lee McCabe, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his habeas corpus petition. McCabe contends his due process rights were violated by the Parole Commission's reliance upon factual inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report in setting a presumptive parole release date. During the pendency of this appeal, the Parole Commission reopened McCabe's case for reconsideration of his claims of error. The Commission will review the sentencing transcript and a letter from McCabe's trial attorney alleging errors in the presentence report.
Because it appears the Commission will consider all issues raised by McCabe in this appeal, his appeal is moot. See Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., --- U.S. ----, 110 S. Ct. 1249, 1253 (1990) (federal court jurisdiction limited to adjudication of actual cases and live controversies). The "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception to the mootness doctrine is not applicable.1 See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 633-34 (1982). A possibility that other persons might litigate a similar claim is not sufficient to sustain our jurisdiction. See Cox v. McCarthy, 829 F.2d 800, 804-5 (9th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, this appeal is
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
In absence of a class action, the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" doctrine is limited to exceptional cases where the challenged action is: (1) too short in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration; and (2) there is a reasonable expectation or demonstrated probability of the controversy recurring between the parties. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975); Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1340-43 (9th Cir. 1985)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
