Curry Robinson v. Kenneth Cameron, No. 18-3340 (3d Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ________________ No. 18-3340 ________________ CURRY ROBINSON, Appellant v. KENNETH CAMERON, Superintendent; JOHN E. WETZEL, Secretary of Department of Corrections; VINCENT DEFELICE, Unit Manager; SHANNON SAGE, Activities Manager ________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (W.D. Pa. 3:16-cv-00044) District Judge: Honorable Kim R. Gibson ________________ Argued: July 8, 2020 Before: McKEE, BIBAS, and FUENTES, Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: August 6, 2020) ________________ OPINION * ________________ * This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Jacob M. Abrahamson (Argued) University of Pennsylvania School of Law 3400 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Joseph K. Hetrick Nicolas A. Novy Dechert 2929 Arch Street 18th Floor, Cira Centre Philadelphia, PA 19104 Attorneys for Appellant Scott A. Bradley Kemal A. Mericili Daniel B. Mullen (Argued) Office of Attorney General Pennsylvania 1251 Waterfront Plact Mezzanine Level Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Attorneys for Appellee McKEE, Circuit Judge Curry Robinson appeals the grant of summary judgment dismissing his claim for relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) and First Amendment. His suit only asked for injunctive relief and he is no longer in custody. Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal as moot. Robinson sought injunctive relief based on being denied participation in the SCIHoutzdale counseling program for sex offenders and his subsequent and continued 2 categorization as an individual who voluntarily refused rehabilitation. 1 In December 2019, Robinson was released from custody after serving the maximum time allowed under his sentence. 2 Although Robinson is no longer in custody and sought only injunctive relief, he maintains his suit is not moot and that we can consider the merits. We disagree. When an inmate seeks only equitable relief for claims arising from his imprisonment, the claims become moot upon his release from custody if he cannot establish collateral consequences redressable by a favorable judgment. 3 Robinson has not identified any such consequences. There is, however, an exception to mootness for equitable claims like the one asserted by Robinson. Mootness will not bar such an action when 1) the action’s duration is “too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration” and 2) when “there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the same action again . . .”4 Here, the exception does not apply. Robinson served sufficient time to allow his claims to be fully litigated and as he is no longer in custody, we cannot afford him the 1 42 PA. CONS. STAT. § 9718.1(c) directs the DOC to “develop and provide [a] program of counseling or therapy” for defendants convicted of certain enumerated offenses. Appellant’s Br. at 7. 2 Appellees’ Br. at 17. 3 See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7–14 (1998) (explaining that a case becomes moot if events during the litigation prevent a court from redressing the plaintiff’s injury). 4 Id. at 17 (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Lewis v. Cont’l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 481 (1990)). 3 equitable relief he is suing for—even if his claim is otherwise meritorious. Similarly, given his release from custody, we cannot presume that Robinson will be subject to the “same action” again. Even if he were to reoffend and be returned to custody, we cannot assume he would be housed in SCI-Houtzdale. Robinson concedes that the requirement of “confession” that he complains of is not uniform throughout DOC institutions where he might be housed. Moreover, even if it was, it would be premature speculation for us to adjudicate his claims now when we would not be able to grant him the only relief he seeks. An injunction barring the DOC from requiring him to admit guilt before allowing him into a sexual offender program is meaningless now that he is not in custody. As there is no case or controversy 5 we lack jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal as moot. 5 Id. at 7. 4
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.
