JOHN VAN GELDERN, APPELLANT,
v.
ABELICIO CHAVEZ ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the case should be dismissed as moot, not the appeal, to prevent the lower court's judgment from having res judicata effect.
Appellant sued the California Adult Authority for arbitrarily refusing parole. While the appeal was pending, appellant was released on parole, and his…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Rights Act Claim cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant brought suit under the Civil Rights Act seeking release on parole charging that the California Adult Authority arbitrarily refused to grant him parole. The District Court dismissed his action upon the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim. This appeal followed.
After the taking of the appeal appellant was released on parole, rendering moot his claims for injunctive relief and mandamus. His original claim for money damages was relinquished in his amended complaint where he expressly refrained from demanding judgment for such relief. Rule 8(a) (3), Fed.R.Civ.P. The case has thus been rendered moot. Since this did not result from conduct of appellant and since appellant has thereby been denied review of the District Court judgment, the action itself and not simply the appeal should be dismissed upon this ground in order to preclude the judgment from acting as res judicata upon the issues presented.
Remanded with instructions that judgment be vacated and that the action be dismissed upon the ground that the case has been rendered moot.