Interesting records access case is mooted on appeal

This case involves two federal statutes that address public access to records dealing with developmentally-disabled prisoners in New York. An advocacy group wanted certain documents relevant to inmates, launching a battle that wound up in federal district court and then the Court of Appeals. But the advocacy group was successful in receiving the documents, and the appeal is therefore moot.

The case is Disability Rights New York v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, a summary order issued on October 18. The two statutes are the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 2000 and the Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness Act of 1986. Both laws are found in Title 42 of the U.S. Code. The plaintiff group wanted records for two individuals incarcerated in DOCCS facilities. The district court denied the organization's motion to acquire the documents for inmate A but granted the application for inmate B. The organization appealed as to the ruling on inmate B.

But the state turned over the documents for inmate B while the appeal was pending. This is a potentially interesting and important issue, as the Court of Appeals rarely interprets these statutes. But the Constitution only allows the federal courts to decide "cases and controversies," which means there must be a real and concrete dispute between the parties. The federal courts cannot issue advisory rulings. 

The mootness as the inmate B is clear: the state has turned over the records. But the plaintiff-organization argues that the issue as to inmate A is not moot because, it says, DOCCS has not abandoned its legal position and will continue to deny records in the future based on the district court's erroneous interpretation of federal law. That allows plaintiff to argue that its legal issue is "capable of repetition, yet evading review," an exception to the mootness principle. The Court of Appeals (Chin, Carney and Bianco) rejects that argument, finding "there is no longer any effectual relief whatever that this Court can grant DRNY." The Court notes in a footnote that the parties are litigating similar issues in the district court and can challenge portions of the district court's analysis that bears upon ongoing or future disputes regarding the scope of these federal statutes.