From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. Caulfield

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Feb 28, 2008
No. 07-5245 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 28, 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-5245.

Filed On: February 28, 2008.

BEFORE: Ginsburg, Randolph, and Garland, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

Upon consideration of the motion to dismiss or for summary affirmance, the opposition, and the supplement to the opposition; the motion to dismiss and the opposition thereto; the motions for appointment of counsel; and the court's order to show cause filed December 17, 2007, and the response thereto, it is.

ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel be denied. The interests of justice do not warrant appointment of counsel in this case.See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B). It is.

FURTHER ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that this appeal be dismissed as moot. To the extent appellant is seeking habeas or declaratory relief, appellant has not demonstrated any continuing injury, and there is no live case or controversy. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998); Qassim v. Bush, 466 F.3d 1073, 1076-77 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 1998).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.


Summaries of

Baker v. Caulfield

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Feb 28, 2008
No. 07-5245 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 28, 2008)
Case details for

Baker v. Caulfield

Case Details

Full title:Todd Emerson Baker, Appellant v. John Caulfield, Warden, CDF, et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Date published: Feb 28, 2008

Citations

No. 07-5245 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 28, 2008)