Summary
affirming summary judgment in favor of prison officials where the record demonstrated "good faith efforts to investigate [the plaintiff's] concerns about his well-being and . . . reasonable steps to ensure that his safety would not be jeopardized"
Summary of this case from Alverto v. GilbertOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California David F. Levi, District Judge, Presiding.
Before PREGERSON, WIGGINS, and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
David deGavre appeals a district court's denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and seeks release from his military duty commitment. He claims that Secretary of the Air Force's decision to deny his application to correct his military records was arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with military regulations, and violative of his constitutional rights. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court granted the government's motion and dismissed deGavre's claim.
While this appeal was pending, the Air Force released deGavre from active military duty. The Government requested that we dismiss this appeal as moot. Because deGavre was required to incur a continuing obligation to serve in the Reserves in order to be released from active duty and the government has not presented any evidence that these obligations have been fulfilled, we find that this case presents a live controversy and therefore deny the government's motion to dismiss. See Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149, 150 (1996).
After reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we find that the appellant's claims are without merit and affirm the judgment of the district court.
The government's motion to dismiss is DENIED.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.