John Doe v. Rick Stover

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the timing and substance of the BOP’s decision did not “indicate an unambiguous termination” because, after years of misconduct, it “suddenly changed its position days before [] trial” and without any indication of how it “intends to hold steady” in its new course
• explaining that plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief was not moot because, despite receiving the requested injunctive relief, there was no showing of unambiguous termination of the pattern of allegedly wrongful conduct
• stating that “[t]he District Court skipped [the] crucial first step by failing to require the government to shoulder its initial burden” of showing unambiguous termination and “therefore improperly shifting the burden to [the plaintiff]”
• detailing the factors and burden- shifting applicable where a government official’s cessation of conduct is offered as a basis for a finding of mootness
• detailing the factors and burden-shifting applicable where a government official’s cessation of conduct is offered as a basis for a finding of mootness
• “[W]hen a defendant chooses to end a challenged practice, this choice does not always deprive a federal court of its power to decide the legality of the practice.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).