Sesay v. Napolitano

361 F. App'x 747
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 4, 2010·No. No. 08-56812·Published

Opinion

[748]*748ORDER

The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground of mootness is GRANTED. See Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 376 n. 3, 125 S.Ct. 716, 160 L.Ed.2d 734 (2005) Rodriguez v. Hayes, 578 F.3d 1032, 1044 (9th Cir.2009); Picrin-Peron v. Rison, 930 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir.1991). This appeal is dismissed as moot.

Because this mootness was caused by the unilateral act of the government, we vacate the decision of the district court and remand with instructions to dismiss the petition as moot. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 25, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994) (stating that equitable considerations favor vacatur “when mootness results from unilateral action of the party who prevailed below”); see also Alvarez v. Smith, — U.S. —, 130 S.Ct. 576, 581-84, — L.Ed.2d — (2009).

APPEAL DISMISSED; REMANDED with instructions.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Sesay v. Napolitano, 361 F. App'x 747 (9th Cir. 2010).

361 F. App'x 747 (Sesay v. Napolitano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Alvarez v. Smith
558 U.S. 87 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Clark v. Martinez
543 U.S. 371 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Rodriguez v. Hayes
578 F.3d 1032 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)