Mootness is something every lawyer knows about, theoretically speaking. When obtaining equitable relief, however, the issue of mootness need to be thought of well in advance of appeal, as proper steps need to be taken early in the game.
Here’s an example from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where preemptive thinking could have kept the issue ripe for appeal.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a final notice this week announcing the adoption of amendments to Circuit Rule 35. The amendments will become effective on December 1, 2011.
The amendments affect the time limits for filing a petition for panel or en banc rehearing to conform to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40.
In compliance with the D.C. Circuit's local rules, the court published the proposed amendment for public comment in September. No comments were received.
Unscrupulous judges' shenanigans are typically the domain of television shows: payoffs, ex parte hearings, and favoritism make for great entertainment.
So what if the federal judge presiding over your case decides that life should imitate art?
Congress, anticipating this possibility, instituted a judicial misconduct reporting procedure in 1980. Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, anyone can file a complaint in court to report a federal judge's bad behavior. But before you file a complaint, remember that you need evidence. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals warns that almost all complaints filed in recent years have been dismissed for lack of evidence.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has proposed an amendment to Circuit Rule 35 regarding the time limits for filing a petition for panel or en banc rehearing.
The proposed amendments were made to conform to expected changes to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) 40, which the Supreme Court has approved. The Circuit anticipates that FRAP 40 will become effective on December 1, 2011.
