IN RE EXTRADITION OF HOUCHANG GHANDTCHI, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLANT,
v.
HOUCHANG GHANDTCHI, APPELLEE
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.
When a case becomes moot after an appellate court issues a decision but before the mandate issues, the appellate court should vacate the district court's judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss as moot.
A magistrate ordered Ghandtchi released on bail pending extradition. The government appealed the district court's dismissal of its review of the bail …
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 Precedential Effect cases and more on FLexlaw
BY THE COURT:
A United States magistrate ordered Houchang Ghandtchi released on bail pending an extradition hearing. The government sought review before the district court, which held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the magistrate’s decision. The government appealed to this court, and on February 11, 1983 we affirmed the decision of the district court. In Re Extradition of Ghandtchi, 697 F. 2d 1037 (11th Cir.1983). Pending these proceedings Ghandtchi remained in custody pursuant to a stay. He was released on bail February 16.
The government, by motion, asserts that on February 17 Ghandtchi’s extradition hearing was held, the magistrate found him extraditable, and he was again taken into custody. The government contends that the issue raised on appeal — the jurisdiction of the district court to review the magistrate’s decision to grant bail pending a hearing — has become moot. To remove any res judicata and precedential effects that this court’s order might have, the government asks that appellate proceedings be dismissed, the district court’s judgment vacated, and the case remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss it as moot.
Where a case becomes moot after the district court enters judgment but before the appellate court has issued a decision, the appellate court must dismiss the appeal, vacate the district court’s judgment, and remand with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See Great Western Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U.S. 92, 99 S.Ct. 2149, 60 L.Ed.2d 735 (1979) (reversing an appellate court for failing to follow the vacation technique); U.S. v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); U.S. v. Sarmiento-Rozo, 592 F. 2d 1318 (5th Cir.1979).1
Here the government had 21 days from February 11 to seek en banc reconsideration. See Fed.R.App.P. 41(a). The hearing was held and Ghandtchi again taken into custody six days after February 11. Upon the government’s motion, the time for filing a petition for en banc reconsideration was extended, and issuance of the mandate stayed, until March 25, when the government filed this motion. Issuance of the mandate has been stayed further pending disposition of the government’s motion to vacate. Id. No case is cited, and we find none, where mootness occurred after an appellate court had issued a decision but before the losing party could seek en banc reconsideration and before the mandate had issued. The cases nevertheless suggest that vacation for mootness is appropriate.
The Supreme Court employs the vacation procedure where a case it has decided to review becomes moot before decision. See Munsingwear, 340 U.S. at 39 & n. 2, 71 S.Ct. at 106 & n. 2. The Court has also applied the procedure where the case became moot while petition for certiorari was pending. Alabama v. Davis, 446 U.S. 903, 100 S.Ct. 1827, 64 L.Ed.2d 256 (1980). We see no reason why this court should not declare the case moot when the mandate has not yet issued, if the Supreme Court can do the same while the case is pending before it on petition for certiorari, that is, the Court has not yet taken jurisdiction.
The motion of the government is GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is VACATED and the cause is REMANDED to the district court with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.
. In the words of the Court in Munsingwear, the vacation
procedure clears the path for future relitigation of the issues between the parties and eliminates a judgment, review of which was prevented through happenstance. When [this] procedure is followed, the rights of all parties are preserved; none is prejudiced by a decision which in the statutory scheme was only preliminary,
340 U.S. at 40, 71 S.Ct. at 107.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Wahl v. McIVER, 773 F.2d 1169 (11th Cir. 1985)…he district court enters its judgment but before the appellate court has issued a decision, the appellate court must dismiss the appeal, vacate the district court’s judgment, and remand with instructions to dismiss the case as moot. In Re Ghandtchi, 705 F. 2d 1315, 1316 (11th Cir.1983). In regard to appellant’s complaint that the district court should have appointed counsel, he has failed to demonstrate any entitlement to such action. Appointment of counsel in a civil case is not a constitutional right. Mekd…
-
Thomas v. Bryant, 614 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2010)…has issued a decision, the appellate court must dismiss the appeal, vacate the district court’s judgment, and remand with instructions to dismiss as moot.” Bekier v. Bekier, 248 F. 3d 1051, 1055-56 (11th Cir.2001) (citing United States v. Ghandtchi, 705 F. 2d 1315, 1316 (11th Cir.1983)). However, although Thomas’s death deprives us of jurisdiction to determine the merits of his Eighth Amendment claim and the district court’s award of his injunctive relief, “[w]hen plaintiffs clearly succeeded in obtaining th…
-
Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr. v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1435 (11th Cir. 1987)…t. 605, 7 L.Ed.2d 526 (1962); see abo North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) (“the question of mootness is ... one which a federal court must resolve before it assumes jurisdiction"). In In re Ghandtchi, 705 F. 2d 1315 (11th Cir. 1983), this court explicitly held that a case must be dismissed if it becomes moot between issuance of the panel opinion and disposition of a petition for rehearing. Thus, we assume that the Charter Medical panel reached and rejected the…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)
- Great W. Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U.S. 92 (U.S. 1979)
- Pynes v. United States, 446 U.S. 903 (U.S. 1980)
- United States v. Duncan, 446 U.S. 903 (U.S. 1980)
- In re Extradition OF Houchang Ghandtchi. United States v. Houchang Ghandtchi, 697 F.2d 1037 (11th Cir. 1983)
- United States v. Horacio Sarmiento-Rozo, 592 F.2d 1318 (5th Cir. 1979)