author: Per Curiam.

text:
    FLETCHER, SUPERINTENDENT, BELL COUNTY FORESTRY CAMP v. WEIR
    No. 81-1049.
    Decided March 22, 1982
   Per Curiam.

In the course of a fight in a nightclub parking lot, Ronnie Buchanan pinned respondent Weir to the ground. Buchanan then jumped to his feet and shouted that he had been stabbed; he ultimately died from his stab wounds. Respondent immediately left the scene, and did not report the incident to the police.

At his trial for intentional murder, respondent took the stand in his own defense. He admitted stabbing Buchanan, but claimed that he acted in self-defense and that the stabbing was accidental. This in-court statement was the first occasion on which respondent offered an exculpatory version of the stabbing. The prosecutor cross-examined him as to why he had, when arrested, failed either to advance his exculpatory explanation to the arresting officers or to disclose the location of the knife he had used to stab Buchanan. Respondent was ultimately found guilty by a jury of first-degree manslaughter. The conviction was affirmed on appeal to the Supreme Court of Kentucky.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky then granted respondent a writ of habeas corpus, and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. 658 F. 2d 1126 (1981). The Court of Appeals concluded that respondent was denied due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment when the prosecutor used his post-arrest silence for impeachment purposes. Although it did not appear from the record that the arresting officers had immediately read respondent his Miranda warnings, the court concluded that a defendant cannot be impeached by use of his postarrest silence even if no Miranda warnings had been given. The court held that “it is inherently unfair to allow cross-examination concerning post-arrest silence,” 658 F. 2d, at 1130, and rejected the contention that our decision in Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U. S. 610 (1976), applied only where the police had read Miranda warnings to a defendant. Because we think that the Court of Appeals gave an overly broad reading to our decision in Doyle v. Ohio, supra, we reverse its judgment.

One year prior to our decision in Doyle, we held in the exercise of our supervisory power over the federal courts that silence following the giving of Miranda warnings was ordinarily so ambiguous as to have little probative value. United States v. Hale, 422 U. S. 171 (1975). There we said:

“In light of the many alternative explanations for his pretrial silence, we do not think it sufficiently probative of an inconsistency with his in-court testimony to warrant admission of evidence thereof.” Id., at 180.

The principles which evolved on the basis of decisional law dealing with appeals within the federal court system are not, of course, necessarily based on any constitutional principle. Where they are not, the States are free to follow or to disregard them so long as the state procedure as a whole remains consistent with due process of law. See Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 146 (1973). The year after our decision in Hale, we were called upon to decide an issue similar to that presented in Hale in the context of a state criminal proceeding. While recognizing the importance of cross-examination and of exposing fabricated defenses, we held in Doyle v. Ohio, supra, that because of the nature of Miranda warnings it would be a violation of due process to allow comment on the silence which the warnings may well have encouraged:

“[WJhile it is true that the Miranda warnings contain no express assurance that silence will carry no penalty, such assurance is implicit to any person who receives the warnings. In such circumstances, it would be fundamentally unfair and a deprivation of due process to allow the arrested person’s silence to be used to impeach an explanation subsequently offered at trial.” Id., at 618 (footnote omitted).

The significant difference between the present case and Doyle is that the record does not indicate that respondent Weir received any Miranda warnings during the period in which he remained silent immediately after his arrest. The majority of the Court of Appeals recognized the difference, but sought to extend Doyle to cover Weir’s situation by stating that “[w]e think an arrest, by itself, is governmental action which implicitly induces a defendant to remain silent.” 658 F. 2d, at 1131. We think that this broadening of Doyle is unsupported by the reasoning of that case and contrary to our post -Doyle decisions.

In Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U. S. 231, 239 (1980), a case dealing with pre-arrest silence, we said:

“Common law traditionally has allowed witnesses to be impeached by their previous failure to state a fact in circumstances in which that fact naturally would have been asserted. 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence §1042, p. 1056 (Chadboum rev. 1970). Each jurisdiction may formulate its own rules of evidence to determine when prior silence is so inconsistent with present statements that impeachment by reference to such silence is probative.”

In Jenkins, as in other post -Doyle cases, we have consistently explained Doyle as a case where the government had induced silence by implicitly assuring the defendant that his silence would not be used against him. In Roberts v. United States, 445 U. S. 552, 561 (1980), we observed that the post-conviction, presentencing silence of the defendant did not resemble “postarrest silence that may be induced by the assurances contained in Miranda warnings.” In Jenkins, we noted that the failure to speak involved in that case occurred before the defendant was taken into custody and was given his Miranda warnings, commenting that no governmental action induced the defendant to remain silent before his arrest. 447 U. S., at 239-240. Finally, in Anderson v. Charles, 447 U. S. 404, 407-408 (1980), we explained that use of silence for impeachment was fundamentally unfair in Doyle because “Miranda warnings inform a person of his right to remain silent and assure him, at least implicitly, that his silence will not be used against him. . . . Doyle bars the use against a criminal defendant of silence maintained after receipt of governmental assurances.”

In the absence of the sort of affirmative assurances embodied in the Miranda warnings, we do not believe that it violates due process of law for a State to permit cross-examination as to postarrest silence when a defendant chooses to take the stand. A State is entitled, in such situations, to leave to the judge and jury under its own rules of evidence the resolution of the extent to which postarrest silence may be deemed to impeach a criminal defendant’s own testimony.

The motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Brennan would set the case for oral argument.

Justice Marshall dissents from the summary reversal of this case.

       During cross-examination, the prosecutor also questioned respondent concerning his failure prior to his arrest to report the incident to the police and offer his exculpatory story. Relying on our decision in Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U. S. 231 (1980), the Court of Appeals correctly held that there was no constitutional impropriety in the prosecutor’s use of respondent’s pre-arrest silence for impeachment purposes.

        Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).


source: Caselaw Access Project

author:
Justice Stevens
      Justice Brennan,

license: Public Domain

text:
    U. S. INDUSTRIES/FEDERAL SHEET METAL, INC., et al., v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al.
    No. 80-518.
    Argued October 6, 1981
    Decided March 23, 1982

      Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and White, Blackmun, Powell, and Rehnquist, JJ., joined. Brennan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Marshall, J., joined, post, p. 617. O’Connor, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

      Richard W. Galiher, Jr., argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Richard W. Galiher, William H. Clarke, and Frank J. Martell.

      James F. Green argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief for respondent Riley were Karl N. Marshall, Martin E. Gerel, James A. Mannino, Mark L. Schaffer, and Wayne M. Mamulla

        John C. Duncan III filed a brief for the American Insurance Association as amicus curiae.

   Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In the early morning of November 20, 1975, respondent Ralph Riley awoke with severe pains in his neck, shoulders, and arms, which later were attributed by physicians to an exacerbation of an arthritic condition. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that this “injury” was sufficient to invoke the “statutory presumption of compensability,” § 20(a) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 44 Stat. (part 2) 1436, 33 U. S. C. § 920(a), and vacated the administrative denial of disability benefits. We granted certiorari, 450 U. S. 979, and we now reverse.

Contending that he was permanently and totally disabled by the arthritic condition, Riley’s retained counsel filed with the Deputy Commissioner a claim for compensation under the Act. See 33 U. S. C. § 913. On standard form LS-203, in response to the direction to “[djescribe in full how the accident occurred,” Riley wrote that on November 19, 1975, he was “[ljifting duct work with co-worker, weighing approximately 500 pounds, felt sharp pain in neck and sat down.” App. 111.

An evidentiary hearing was convened before an Administrative Law Judge. After construing the evidence in a light most favorable to Riley and resolving all doubts in his favor, the Administrative Law Judge found “that Claimant sustained no injury within the meaning of Sec. 2(2) of the Act on November 19, 1975, as alleged, and that Claimant and Sutherland [Riley’s co-workerj gave false testimony as to the happening of the accident.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 24A.

A divided panel of the Benefits Review Board affirmed the denial of disability benefits, holding that the Administrative Law Judge’s findings were supported by substantial evidence. In dissent, Member Miller stated:

“The Act does not require that claimant prove an accident in order to establish a claim. To the contrary, compensation is payable under the Act if claimant is disabled because of injury which is causally related to his employment. 33 U. S. C. §§902(10), 902(2).” 9 BRBS 936, 940 (1979) (emphasis in origina:!).

Member Miller defined an injury as “something go[ne] wrong within the human frame.” Ibid. Riley suffered such an injury when he awoke on November 20 with severe pain. Therefore, Member Miller would have remanded the case for a determination of “the real issue in this case,” which “is not whether claimant sustained an accident at work but whether claimant’s injury is causally related to his employment.” Ibid. That determination was to be made in light of the § 20(a) presumption, which “places the burden on employer to prove by substantial evidence that claimant’s injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment.” Ibid.

On Riley’s petition for review, the Court of Appeals vacated the decision of the Benefits Review Board, agreeing with Member Miller’s position. Riley v. U. S. Industries/Federal Sheet Metal, Inc., 200 U. S. App. D. C. 402, 627 F. 2d 455 (1980). The court stated that “it can hardly be disputed that petitioner suffered an ‘injury^ when he awakened in pain on November 20, 1975.” Id., at 405, 627 F. 2d, at 458. The court then turned its “attention to the statutory presumption and the range of situations to which this Court has applied it.” Ibid. It construed its earlier cases as holding “that an injury need not have occurred during working hours” and “need not be traceable to any particular work-related incident to be compensable.” Id., at 405-406, 627 F. 2d, at 458-459.

“The foregoing cases make clear the pervasive scope of the statutory presumption of compensability. Indeed, no decision of this Court has ever failed to apply the presumption to any facet of any claim before it. We now hold expressly that where a claimant has been injured, the Act requires that, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, a claimant be given the benefit of a rebuttable presumption that the injury arose out of and in the course of the claimant’s employment.” Id., at 406, 627 F. 2d, at 459.

The question for remand was not whether Riley’s “injury” stemmed from a “work-related incident,” but whether it was “ ‘employment-bred. ’ ” Ibid.

The Court of Appeals erred because it overlooked (1) the statutory language that relates the § 20(a) presumption to the employee’s claim, and (2) the statutory definition of the term “injury.”

I

The Court of Appeals’ first error was its invocation of the § 20(a) presumption in support of a claim that was not made by Riley. Riley claimed that he suffered an injury at work on November 19 when he was lifting duct work and felt a sharp pain in his neck. The Administrative Law Judge found as a matter of fact that the accident had not occurred; this finding is no longer challenged. The Court of Appeals’ theory of recovery was that Riley suffered an injury at home in bed on November 20 and that Riley was entitled to .a presumption that this injury was “employment-bred.”

Section 20(a), 44 Stat. (part 2) 1436, provides that “[i]n any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this Act it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary . . . [t]hat the claim comes within the provisions of this Act.” The coverage of the presumption is debatable, but one thing is clear: the presumption applies to the claim. Even if a claimant has an unfettered right to amend his claim to conform to the proof, the presumption by its terms cannot apply to a claim that has never been made.

Section 13 of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 913, provides that a claimant must timely file a claim with the Deputy Commissioner. The content of the claim is not specified in that section. But § 12(b), 33 U. S. C. § 912(b), requires that the claimant timely give the Deputy Commissioner and his employer notice of his injury, and provides further that “[s]uch notice . . . shall contain ... a statement of the time, place, nature, and cause of the injury.” The claim, like the notice required by § 12 and like the pleadings required in any type of litigation, serves the purposes of notifying the adverse party of the allegations and of confining the issues to be tried and adjudicated.

In Riley’s claim, he alleged that he suffered an accidental injury in the course of his employment on November 19. No claim has ever been made that the “injury” occurred at home and that it was somehow “employment-bred.” Even if such a vague claim stated a prima facie case of compensability, the statutory presumption does not require the administrative law judge to address and the employer to rebut every conceivable theory of recovery. At least when the claimant is represented by counsel, as Riley was, there is no reason to depart from the specific statutory direction that a claim be made and that the presumption, however construed, attach to the claim.

II

The Court of Appeals’ second error was its incorrect use of the term “injury.” The court stated that Riley’s attack of pain in the early morning of November 20 was an “injury” compensable under the Act if the employer did not disprove by substantial evidence that the “injury” was “employment-bred.” The fact that “‘something unexpectedly goes wrong with the human frame,’” 200 U. S. App. D. C., at 405, 627 F. 2d, at 458 (quoting Wheatley v. Adler, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 177, 183, 407 F. 2d 307, 313 (1968)), however, does not establish an “injury” within the meaning of the Act. The mere existence of a physical impairment is plainly insufficient to shift the burden of proof to the employer.

Section 3(a) provides that “[c]ompensation shall be payable under this Act in respect of disability... of an employee, but only if the disability . . . results from an injury.” 44 Stat. (part 2) 1426, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 903(a). Injury is defined as an “accidental injury . . . arising out of and in the course of employment.” 33 U. S. C. §902(2). Arising “out of” and “in the course of” employment are separate elements: the former refers to injury causation; the latter refers to the time, place, and circumstances of the injury. Not only must the injury have been caused by the employment, it also must have arisen during the employment.

A prima facie “claim for compensation,” to which the statutory presumption refers, must at least allege an injury that arose in the course of employment as well as out of employment. The “injury” noticed by the Court of Appeals, however, arose in bed, not in the course of employment. Even if the Court of Appeals simply mislabeled the early morning attack of pain as the “injury” itself rather than as a manifestation of an earlier injury, the claim envisioned by the Court of Appeals did not allege any facts that would establish that Riley suffered an injury that arose in the course of employment. The statutory presumption is no substitute for the allegations necessary to state a prima facie case.

Ill

Riley’s claim stated a prima facie case of compensability; if the Administrative Law Judge had believed Riley’s allegations, he would have found that Riley’s attack of pain in the early morning of November 20 was caused by an injury suffered when Riley was lifting duct work on the job on November 19. The judge, however, disbelieved Riley’s allegations and marshaled substantial evidence to support his findings. The statutory presumption did not require him to adjudicate any claim that was not made, and the Court of Appeals erred in remanding for that purpose. Nor could the statutory presumption have aided Riley had he made the claim envisioned by the Court of Appeals — that he suffered an “injury” at home — for such a claim omits the requirement that a compen-sable injury arise in the course of employment.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Justice Brennan,

with whom Justice Marshall joins,

dissenting.

I

Section 20(a) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), 33 U. S. C. § 920(a), provides that “it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary . . . [t]hat [a] claim [for compensation] comes within the provisions of this chapter.” The central issue before us is whether this provision requires the employer in a compensation hearing to offer “substantial evidence” refuting the existence of a causal relationship between a compensation claimant’s injury and his employment. The question has been fully briefed and argued, but the Court does not address it. For me, however, the answer is clear and controls the proper disposition of this case.

By its terms, and quite in contrast to the practice in judicial proceedings, § 20(a) requires the employer to take the initial steps to disprove his liability. This preliminary shifting of the burden to the employer exemplifies the “humanitarian nature of the Act,” O’Keeffe v. Smith Associates, 380 U. S. 359, 362 (1965) (per curiam), and the “strong legislative policy favoring awards in arguable cases;” Wheatley v. Adler, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 177, 183, 407 F. 2d 307, 313 (1968) (en banc). Section 20(a) is clearly broad enough to encompass the question of causation. “The statutory presumption applies as much to the nexus between an employee’s malady and his employment activities as it does to any other aspect of a claim. ” In re District of Columbia Workmen’s Compensation Act, 180 U. S. App. D. C. 216, 223, 554 F. 2d 1075, 1082 (1976). To defeat a claim for compensation, the employer must rebut the presumption of compensability by offering substantial evidence that the claim is not one “arising out of and in the course of employment.” 33 U. S. C. §§902(2), 903; see Marra Bros., Inc. v. Cardillo, 154 F. 2d 357 (CA3 1946). Only after the employer offers such substantial evidence does the presumption fall “out of the case.” Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U. S. 280, 286 (1935).

The statutory presumption thus defines the basic agenda for the hearing before the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP), and the factfinding required before the OWCP may deny a compensation claim. In this case, there is no serious dispute that respondent Riley suffered some disabling injury. See Riley v. U. S. Industries/Federal Sheet Metal, Inc., 200 U. S. App. D. C. 402, 406, n. 3, 627 F. 2d 455, 459, n. 3 (1980). Riley has an arthritic neck condition, and “the pain [he] suffered . . . was due to an exacerbation of his arthritic neck condition.” Id., at 405, 627 F. 2d, at 458. Given the existence of this condition, and the statutory presumption, the relevant inquiry was whether the employer had shown that the condition was not sufficiently work-related to render the employer accountable. No such finding was ever entered. Rather, the Administrative Law Judge and the Benefits Review Board focused exclusively on the testimony of Riley and his co-worker that something happened to Riley while lifting duct work on November 19,1975, causing an immediate pain in his neck. The Administrative Law Judge concluded only that no such incident occurred; the Benefits Review Board affirmed that finding.

Had the Administrative Law Judge credited the testimony of Riley with respect to the November 19 incident, it would surely have strengthened Riley’s position that the exacerbation of his arthritic neck condition was work-related. But the finding that this incident did not occur hardly demonstrates that Riley’s disability did not arise out of and in the course of employment. An injury need not be traceable to a single event at work in order to be compensable. “Even if the asserted work-related incident had never occurred, the injuries suffered by the claimant might nevertheless have been ‘employment bred.’” Id., at 406, 627 F. 2d, at 459. Absent a finding excluding this possibility, compensation could not be denied. In addition, the failure of the Administrative Law Judge to focus on the broader issue of the injury’s work-relatedness suggests that he may have failed to conduct the proceedings with proper attentiveness to the basic issue in a case such as this: namely, had the claimant been disabled as a result of his employment? Because the agency did not make the crucial finding, the Court of Appeals quite properly remanded this case so that the necessary determination could be made.

HH hH

Rather than allow a remand so that the normal process of administrative adjudication might run its course, the Court discerns a dispositive procedural requirement within the Act. The Court places its emphasis on the language of § 20(a):

“In any proceeding for the enforcement of a claim for compensation under this Act it shall be presumed, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary . . . [t]hat the claim comes within the provisions of this Act.” (Emphasis added.)

Unremarkably, the Court reads this language as applying the presumption to the “claim for compensation.” But quite remarkably, and without any support in precedent or the language of the Act, the Court construes the words “claim for compensation” to mean some sort of legal document, or at least some stated theory, setting forth a prima facie case for compensation, upon which all further proceedings must be based, and to which the presumption may attach.

The Court appears to glean its understanding of the word “claim” from the meaning assigned to the term “claim for relief” by Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court concedes, as it must, that this understanding of the word “claim” finds no direct authority in the LHWCA itself. The Act does require the employee to file a timely “claim” with the Deputy Commissioner. 33 U. S. C. § 913(a). See ante, at 613. But it is clear that the referred-to “claim” is nothing more than a simple request for payment, carrying with it the implicit assertion of an entitlement to compensation. To the extent an allegation of “time, place, nature, and cause of injury” is statutorily required, it is only in connection with the notice to the employer referred to by § 12. 33 U. S. C. §912.

Moreover, the Court’s reliance on a written pleading requirement is wholly out of step with the sensible informality with which the Act is administered. Under the present regime of administrative enforcement, issues are not narrowed through pleadings, but rather through a mixture of formal and informal prehearing procedures. 20 CFR §§702.311-702.317 (1981). The regulations governing the administration of the Act reflect the method chosen by the agency charged with administering the Act for addressing the practical problems of issue narrowing that inevitably arise in the course of administrative proceedings. In addition to the prehearing conference report, which sets, forth the issues for the hearing, the parties are required to submit a prehear-ing statement defining the issues to be considered. See §702.317. Nevertheless, the employee’s failure to raise a particular issue at the prehearing conference, or in his prehearing statement, does not preclude him from raising that issue at the formal hearing. See § 702.336(a). In addition, “[a]t any time prior to the filing of the compensation order. . . the administrative law judge may in his discretion” reopen the hearing to consider a new issue. § 702.336(b).

Apparently the Court is of the view that its imported definition of “claim” is necessary to protect employers from being called into a compensation hearing without any warning of the basis upon which compensation is sought; on this argument, the employer would otherwise be forced to offer evidence refuting every conceivable basis upon which an employee’s claim might be grounded. I do not share the Court’s fear. The Act already contains sufficient accommodation to such legitimate employer concerns: in the form of a statutory notice requirement, in the practical manner in which the presumption of compensability has historically been applied, and in the good-sense application of agency regulations and case management principles by the administrative officials charged with the execution of this Act’s provisions. In sum, I am confident, as the Court apparently is not, that any legitimate claim of surprise by the employer in this or in any other case may be fairly considered within the framework of the governing regulations, and resolved in a manner that effectuates the humanitarian purposes of this Act. Rather than rely on some Active legal analysis to dispose of the case “as a matter of law,” by intertwining the problem of notice with the § 20(a) presumption, I would leave all such questions of proof and notice for the agency on remand, as did the Court of Appeals.

r — i k-H u-4

As Justice Douglas once had occasion to remind us, “[tjhe problems under this Act should rest mainly with the Courts of Appeals.” O’Keeffe v. Smith Associates, 380 U. S., at 371 (dubitante). The Court’s treatment of the relatively simple issues raised by the present case underscores the wisdom of that counsel of deference. The Court of Appeals concluded below that the relevant issues were never resolved by the Administrative Law Judge. I can hardly disagree. Therefore, I dissent.

       “Injury” and “statutory presumption of compensability” are terms employed by the Court of Appeals. See Riley v. U. S. Industries/Federal Sheet Metal, Inc., 200 U. S. App. D. C. 402, 627 F. 2d 455 (1980). As we explain below, the use of the term “injury” to describe Riley’s early morning attack of pain is incorrect. We do not decide the scope of the § 20(a) presumption, or, a fortiori, the appropriateness of the Court of Appeals’ characterization of it.

       Apparently, it is undisputed that Riley is permanently and totally disabled. Brief for Respondent Riley 5, n.

       The form continues with a further instruction:
      “Relate the events which resulted in the injury or occupational disease. Tell what the injured was doing at the time of the accident. Tell what happened and how it happened. Name any objects or substances involved and tell how they were involved. Give full details on all factors which led or contributed to the accident. If more space is needed, continue on reverse.” App. 111.

       The cases cited by the Court of Appeals do not support this proposition. In Butler v. District Parking Management Co., 124 U. S. App. D. C. 195, 363 F. 2d 682 (1966), the claimant became ill at work and the illness was diagnosed as a schizophrenic reaction. In Wheatley v. Adler, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 177, 407 F. 2d 307 (1968), the employee collapsed from a heart attack at work. In Mitchell v. Woodworth, 146 U. S. App. D. C. 21, 449 F. 2d 1097 (1971), the employee died of a cerebral vascular accident shortly after collapsing at work.

       We need not resolve that debate in this case. It seems fair to assume, however, that the § 20(a) presumption is of the same nature as the presumption created by § 20(d) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 920(d), as construed in Del Vecchio v. Bowers, 296 U. S. 280, 285-287, and the presumption defined in Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See also Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248.

       “This statement must be more than a mere declaration that the employee has received an injury or is suffering from an illness that is related to his employment; it must contain enough details about the nature and extent of the injury or disease to allow the employer to conduct a prompt and complete investigation of the claim so that no prejudice will ensue.” 1A E. Jhirad, A. Sann, N. Golden, & B. Chase, Benedict on Admiralty § 71, p. 4-5 (7th ed. 1981).

       See generally F. James & G. Hazard, Civil Procedure §2.1 (2d ed. 1977). Of course, the workmen’s compensation process is much more simplified than modem civil litigation. Indeed, this is one of the hallmarks of the system:
      “The adjective law of workmen’s compensation, like the substantive, takes its tone from the beneficent and remedial character of the legislation. Procedure is generally summary and informal. . . . The whole idea is to get away from the cumbersome procedures and technicalities of pleading, and to reach a right decision by the shortest and quickest possible route. ... On the other hand, as every lawyer knows, there is a point beyond which the sweeping-aside of ‘technicalities' cannot go, since evidentiary and procedural rules usually have an irreducible hard core of necessary function that cannot be dispensed with in any orderly investigation of the merits of a case.” 3 A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation §78.10, p. 15-2(1976).
      Professor Larson writes that an informal substitute for a claim may be acceptable if it “identif[ies] the claimant, indicate[s] that a compensable injury has occurred, and convey[s] the idea that compensation is expected,” id., § 78.11, p. 15-9; that “considerable liberality is usually shown in allowing amendment of pleadings to correct. . . defects,” unless the “effect is one of undue surprise or prejudice to the opposing party,” id., at 15-11; and that “wide latitude is allowed” as to variance between pleading and proof, “[b]ut if the variance is so great that the defendant is prejudiced by having to deal at the hearing with an injury entirely different from the one pleaded, the variance may be held fatal,” id., at 15 — 13—15-14. Riley had the benefit of these liberal pleading rules; nonetheless, the Court of Appeals applied the statutory presumption to a claim that was not fairly supported by the existing claim or by the evidentiary record. As Professor Larson warns, “[n]o amount of informality can alter the elementary requirement that the claimant allege and prove the substance of all essential elements in his case.” Id., at 15-12.

       “If the employer or carrier declines to pay any compensation on or before the thirtieth day after receiving written notice of a claim for compensation having been filed from the deputy commissioner, on the ground that there is no liability for compensation within the provisions of this chapter and the person seeking benefits shall thereafter have utilized the services of an attorney at law in the successful prosecution of his claim, there shall be awarded, in addition to the award of compensation, in a compensation order, a reasonable attorney’s fee against the employer or carrier in an amount approved by the deputy commissioner, Board, or court, as the case may be. which shall be paid directly by the employer or carrier to the attorney for the claimant in a lump sum after the compensation order becomes final.” 33 U. S. C. § 928(a).

       See, e. g., Ward & Gow v. Krinsky, 259 U. S. 503; Thom v. Sinclair, [1917] A. C. 127; 1A Benedict on Admiralty, supra, §43; 1 A. Larson, supra, § 6.10, at 3-2 — 3-3 (1978).

       The Act was enacted to create a federal workmen’s compensation statute for maritime employments after this Court held that state workmen’s compensation statutes constitutionally could not apply to injured maritime workers. See generally Nogueira v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 281 U. S. 128. Workmen’s compensation legislation has never been intended to provide life or disability insurance for covered employees. The required connection between the death or disability and employment distinguishes the workmen’s compensation program from such an insurance program, and the separate requirements that the injury arise out of and in the course of employment are the means for assuring, to the extent possible, that the work connection is proved. See W. Dodd, Administration of Workmen’s Compensation 681 (1936); see generally Cudahy Packing Co. v. Parramore, 263 U. S. 418, 422-424.

       It may be that the opinion for the Court of Appeals suffered from failing to distinguish between the use of the term “injury” in its ordinary meaning, and in its specialized meaning under the Act. See 33 U. S. C. § 902(2). But there is absolutely no basis for the suggestion in Part II of the Court’s opinion that the Court of Appeals thought it sufficient to ground a compensation claim on an “injury” that “arose in bed, not in the course of employment.” Ante, at 616. The suggestion is plainly wrong; virtually every aspect of the opinion for the Court of Appeals reaffirms that the issue before the Administrative Law Judge and the Benefits Review Board was whether there existed some causal connection between the claimant’s disability and his employment.

       In practice, the two tests of “arising out of” and “in the course of” tend to merge into a single determination of work-relatedness. See 1A A. Larson, The Law of Workmen’s Compensation §§29.00-29.10, pp. 5-354— 5-357 (1979). The dissenting member of the Benefits Review Board Panel thus properly described “the real issue in this case” as “whether claimant’s injury is causally related to his employment.” 9 BRBS 936, 940 (1979).

       It is surely plausible that there was a causal relation between the exacerbation of Riley’s arthritic neck condition and the overhead sheet metal duct work that he was engaged in until the night he awoke in bed in pain. But however logical this connection might be in some lay sense, it could hardly assure Riley of recovery. The term “substantial” is relative, and the quantum and type of evidence required of the employer correspond to the specificity of the claimaint’s evidence and allegations. The evidence necessary to overcome the presumption is least when the claim rests — as this one apparently did once the testimony respecting the November 19 accident was rejected — on little more than some arguable link between the disabling condition and the nature of the work.
      There appears to be little in the abbreviated record before this Court directly supporting this broader theory of recovery. Although one physician testified that “[t]he man is certainly disabled from working,” App. 130, this statement was made in the course of questioning about the possible effects of the alleged November 19 incident. Another doctor, describing Riley’s condition shortly after he entered the hospital, noted: “[Mjost of his work is overhead type and involves quite a bit of hyperextention of the neck. That means that most of his work he will have to do with his neck bending upwards.” Id., at 158. That same doctor, however, referred repeatedly to Riley’s assertion that he felt pain as a result of bending or twisting his neck while lifting duct work in November 1975, and rendered his diagnosis on that basis. See id., at 162-169. Although Riley hardly proved his theory by this medical evidence, given the nature of the injury and the nature of his work, Riley clearly made the “initial demonstration of employment-connection [that] will give the presumption a foothold.” 1 A. Larson, supra, § 10.33, at 3-121 (1978).

       This definition of “claim” comports with its accustomed meaning in the context of comparable compensation statutes. For example, “claim” is defined for purposes of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act of 1977, 30 U. S. C. § 801 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. IV), as “a written assertion of entitlement to benefits under [the Act], submitted in a form and manner authorized by the provisions of this subchapter.” 20 CFR § 725.101(a)(16) (1981). See also 20 CFR § 10.5(a)(7) (1981) (Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, 5 U. S. C. § 8101 et seq.).

       The Court’s reliance on the notice requirement of § 12 to suggest that the claim encompass some allegation of “time, place, and manner,” so that the Court can in turn conclude that the statutory presumption applies to what is alleged in the “claim,” is a patchwork job. The “claim” is something entirely apart from the § 12 notice. Indeed, § 12(d) employs the very distinction that the Court seeks to blur: “Failure to give such notice shall not bar any claim under this chapter” where the employer had actual notice, the Deputy Commissioner excuses such notice, or where no objection was raised to the failure “before the deputy commissioner at the first hearing of a claim for compensation . . . .” 33 U. S. C. § 912(d).

       For example, the regulations provide that “[t]he order in which evidence and allegations shall be presented and the procedures at the hearings generally. . . shall be in the discretion of the administrative law judge and of such nature as to afford the parties a reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing.” 20 CFR § 702.338 (1981). That same regulation provides that “[i]f the adminstrative law judge believes that there is relevant and material evidence available which has not been presented at the hearing, he may ... at any time, prior to the filing of the compensation order, reopen the hearing for the receipt of such evidence.”

       Although I do not profess expertise in the administration of the LHWCA, it does seem to me that this provision might have relevance in a case, such as the present one, where the administrative law judge intends to reject the claimaint’s principal theory of the case, but where a second theory should be more fully explored before the question of compensation is finally determined. Of course, I would leave questions regarding the application of this and all other regulations governing LHWCA proceedings for the Review Board to resolve on remand. See also 20 CFR § 702.336(a) (1981).


author: Justice Stevens Justice Marshall,

text:
    LANE, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR v. WILLIAMS et al.
    No. 80-1240.
    Argued December 1, 1981
    Decided March 23, 1982

      Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and White, Powell, Rehnquist, and O’Connor, JJ., joined. Marshall, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Brennan and Black-MUN, JJ., joined, post, p. 634.

      Michael B. Weinstein, Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General, and Herbert L. Caplan and Melboum A. Noel, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General.

      Martha A. Mills, by appointment of the Court, 458 U. S. 921, argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
   Justice Stevens

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 1975, respondents pleaded guilty in Illinois state court to a charge of burglary, an offense punishable at that time by imprisonment for an indeterminate term of years and a mandatory 3-year parole term. We granted certiorari to consider whether the failure of the trial court to advise respondents of that mandatory parole requirement before accepting their guilty pleas deprived them of due process of law. We are unable to reach that question, however, because we find that respondents’ claims for relief are moot.

I

On March 11, 1975, respondent Lawrence Williams ap-. peared in Illinois state court and pleaded guilty to a single count of burglary. Before accepting the guilty plea, the trial judge elicited Williams’ understanding of the terms of a plea agreement, in which his attorney and the prosecutor had agreed that Williams would receive an indeterminate sentence of from one to two years in prison in exchange for pleading guilty. The judge informed Williams that he would impose the bargained sentence, and advised him of both the nature of the charge against him and the constitutional rights that he would waive by pleading guilty. After the prosecutor established a factual basis for the plea, Williams indicated that he understood his rights and wished to plead guilty.

At the time that Williams pleaded guilty, Illinois law required every indeterminate sentence for certain felonies, including burglary, to include a special parole term in addition to the term of imprisonment. During the plea acceptance hearing, neither the trial judge, the prosecutor, nor defense counsel informed Williams that his negotiated sentence included a mandatory parole term of three years.

Williams was discharged from prison on May 20, 1976, and released on parole. On March 3, 1977, he was arrested for reasons that do not appear in the record and, on March 16, 1977, he was returned to prison as a parole violator. While in custody, Williams filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He alleged that he “was not informed” that a mandatory parole term had attached to his sentence until two months before his discharge from prison and that “his present incarceration is therefore in violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.” App. 12. Williams’ petition did not ask the federal court to set aside his conviction and allow him to plead anew. It requested an order “freeing him from the present control” of the Warden and from “all future liability” under his original sentence.

On January 4,1978, the District Court found that Williams’ guilty plea had been induced unfairly in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and ordered Williams released from custody. United States ex rel. Williams v. Morris, 447 F. Supp. 95 (1978). The court expressly “opted for specific performance” of the plea bargain “rather than nullification of the guilty plea.” Id., at 101. The relief granted was precisely what Williams had requested.

Williams was not, however, immediately released from custody. The District Court entered a stay to give the State an opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration. Before that stay was lifted, Williams was released from prison on a special 6-month “supervisory release term.” The District Court subsequently denied the State’s motion to reconsider and the State appealed. While that appeal was pending, Williams’ 6-month release term expired and he was released from the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections.

The facts concerning respondent Southall are similar. Pursuant to a plea bargain with the prosecutor that was accepted in advance by an Illinois trial court, Southall pleaded guilty to a single charge of burglary and was sentenced to prison for a minimum period of one year and a maximum period not to exceed three years. The transcript of the plea acceptance proceeding contains no statement by the prosecutor, Southall’s public defender, or the trial judge that the bargained and imposed sentence included the mandatory 3-year parole term. Like respondent Williams, Southall completed his sentence, was released on parole, and later declared a parole violator. While reincarcerated, he filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal court, seeking his “immediate release.” App. 65. His case was consolidated in the District Court with that of respondent Williams.

The District Court found “Southall’s situation to be factually indistinguishable from Williams’.” 447 F. Supp., at 102. The court thus granted Southall’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The State filed an appeal from that decision, but discharged Southall in compliance with the decision of the District Court.

The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that respondents had failed to exhaust an available state remedy. 594 F. 2d 614 (CA7 1979). Before reaching that decision, however, the court requested the parties to submit supplemental briefs on the issue of mootness. The court concluded that the cases were not moot. It noted that Southall’s mandatory parole term extended beyond the date of its decision and thus could be reinstated. While Williams’ parole term had expired, the court concluded that the controversy was still alive because “there remain collateral consequences which might have lingering effects since [Williams was] found guilty of [a] violatio[n] of the mandatory parole”; that violation “would remain upon [his] recor[d] with various possible adverse consequences.” Id., at 615. Moreover, the court found the issue to be capable of repetition, yet evading review; “[i]t is obvious that because of the short terms often remaining in the mandatory parole terms that the same issue may be expected to be raised as to other petitioners similarly situated with doubtful expectations of resolution.” Ibid.

After the Court of Appeals had rendered its decision, respondent Southall was discharged from the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. On remand, the District Court concluded that, as a result of an intervening decision of the Illinois Supreme Court, exhaustion of state remedies would be futile. 483 F. Supp. 775 (1980). The court again entered judgment for respondents; since they had already been released from custody, the court simply entered an order “declaring void the mandatory parole terms.” App. 39. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, 633 F. 2d 71 (1980), and we granted the State’s petition for certiorari. Sub nom. Franzen v. Williams, 452 U. S. 914.

II

Respondents claim that their constitutional rights were violated when the trial court accepted their guilty pleas without informing them of the mandatory parole requirement. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the court’s failure to advise respondents of this consequence rendered their guilty pleas void, respondents could seek to remedy this error in two quite different ways. They might ask the District Court to set aside their convictions and give them an opportunity to plead anew; in that event, they might either plead not guilty and stand trial or they might try to negotiate a different plea bargain properly armed with the information that any sentence they received would include a special parole term. Alternatively, they could seek relief in the nature of “specific enforcement” of the plea agreement as they understood it; in that event, the elimination of the mandatory parole term from their sentences would remove any possible harmful conseauence from the trial court’s incomplete advice.

If respondents had sought the opportunity to plead anew, this case would not be moot. Such relief would free respondents from all consequences flowing from their convictions, as well as subject them to reconviction with a possibly greater sentence. Cf. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711. Thus, a live controversy would remain to determine whether a constitutional violation in fact had occurred and whether respondents were entitled to the relief that they sought.

Since respondents had completed their previously imposed sentences, however, they did not seek the opportunity to plead anew. Rather, they sought to remedy the alleged constitutional violation by removing the consequence that gave rise to the constitutional harm. In the course of their attack, that consequence expired of its own accord. Respondents are no longer subject to any direct restraint as a result of the parole term. They may not be imprisoned on the lesser showing needed to establish a parole violation than to prove a criminal offense. Their liberty or freedom of movement is not in any way curtailed by a parole term that has expired.

Since respondents elected only to attack their sentences, and since those sentences expired during the course of these proceedings, this case is moot. “Nullification of a conviction may have important benefits for a defendant. . . but urging in a habeas corpus proceeding the correction of a sentence already served is another matter.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244, 248.

The Court of Appeals, relying on Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234, concluded that respondents’ parole violations had sufficient “collateral effects” to warrant an exercise of federal habeas corpus relief. In Carafas we held that an attack on a criminal conviction was not rendered moot by the fact that the underlying sentence had expired. On the basis of New York law, we noted that “[i]n consequence of [the petitioner’s] conviction, he cannot engage in certain businesses; he cannot serve as an official of a labor union for a specified period of time; he cannot vote in any election held in New York State; he cannot serve as a juror.” Id., at 237 (footnotes omitted). These substantial civil penalties were sufficient to ensure that the litigant had “ 'a substantial stake in the judgment of conviction which survives the satisfaction of the sentence imposed on him.’” Ibid, (quoting Fiswick v. United States, 329 U. S. 211, 222). In Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 57, we stated that “a criminal case is moot only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.”

The doctrine of Carafas and Sibron is not applicable in this case. No civil disabilities such as those present in Carafas result from a finding that an individual has violated parole. At most, certain nonstatutory consequences may occur; employment prospects, or the sentence imposed in a future criminal proceeding, could be affected. Cf. People v. Halterman, 45 Ill. App. 3d 605, 608, 359 N. E. 2d 1223, 1225 (1977). The discretionary decisions that are made by an employer or a sentencing judge, however, are not governed by the mere presence or absence of a recorded violation of parole; these decisions may take into consideration, and are more directly influenced by, the underlying conduct that formed the basis for the parole violation. Any disabilities that flow from whatever respondents did to evoke revocation of parole are not removed — or even affected — by a District Court order that simply recites that their parole terms are “void.”

Respondents have never attacked, on either substantive or procedural grounds, the finding that they violated the terms of their parole. Respondent Williams simply sought an order “freeing him from the present control” of the Warden and from “all future liability” under his original sentence; Southall sought his “immediate release” from custody. Through the mere passage of time, respondents have obtained all the relief that they sought. In these circumstances, no live controversy remains.

The Court of Appeals also held that this case was not moot because it was “capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515. That doctrine, however, is applicable only when there is “a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.” Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U. S. 147, 149; Murphy v. Hunt, ante, at 482. Respondents are now acutely aware of the fact that a criminal sentence in Illinois will include a special parole term; any future guilty plea will not be open to the same constitutional attack. The possibility that other persons may litigate a similar claim does not save this case from mootness.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated. The case should be dismissed as moot..

It is so ordered.

Justice Marshall,

with whom Justice Brennan and Justice Blackmun join,

dissenting.

The majority announces today that this case is moot because, in its view, no collateral consequences flow from respondents’ parole revocations, which were based on findings that respondents had violated the conditions of parole terms declared void by the courts below. I dissent from this holding because I believe it is contrary to this Court’s precedents and because it ignores the fact that the State of Illinois does attach collateral consequences to parole revocations, a fact recognized both in the State’s brief to the Court of Appeals on the issue of mootness and in state-court decisions in analogous cases.

HH

The majority recognizes that m habeas corpus challenges to criminal convictions, the case “is moot only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.” Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 57 (1968). This Court has consistently refused to canvass state law to ascertain “the actual existence of specific collateral consequences,” and has presumed that such consequences exist. Id., at 55 (discussing United States v. Morgan, 346 U. S. 502 (1954), and Pollard v. United States, 352 U. S. 354 (1957)). See also Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234, 237-238 (1968).

Today, the majority finds the Carafas doctrine inapplicable, arguing that because respondents did not seek to set aside their convictions, their situation is analogous to that of a defendant who seeks habeas corpus review to correct a sentence already served. See North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244 (1971) (per curiam). Had respondents served the allegedly void mandatory parole term without incident, I might agree that North Carolina v. Rice controls and join the majority’s conclusion that the consequence of the constitutional violation “expired of its own accord.” Ante, at 631. Here, however, respondents were found to have violated the conditions of their parole. Therefore, unlike the situation in North Carolina v. Rice, respondents seek more than a mere reduction in sentence after the sentence has been completed: they seek to have the parole term declared void, or expunged, in order to avoid the future consequences that attach to parole violations. If collateral consequences do attach to parole violations, both the State and respondents have a live interest in this Court’s review of the lower courts’ holdings that the alleged constitutional violations rendered the guilty pleas void and that respondents were entitled to specific performance of the pleas, in the form of a declaration that the mandatory parole terms were void and should be expunged.

The existence of a five controversy in this case turns on whether collateral consequences attach to parole violations. Because this determination involves a difficult question of state law, I believe that the doctrine of Sibron and Carafas should be applied. This doctrine avoids placing a federal court in the awkward position of determining questions of state law not directly before it. By presuming the existence of collateral consequences, federal courts are not required to predict the manner in which a State may use convictions or parole violations in future proceedings. An erroneous determination that collateral consequences do not attach not only injures the individuals challenging the constitutionality of the guilty pleas, but also hinders the State’s ability to use these violations in future proceedings. Today’s opinion is an unfortunate example of such an erroneous interpretation.

II

The majority’s decision is apparently based on a cursory examination of Illinois statutes. Finding no statutory civil disabilities, the majority glibly dismisses nonstatutory consequences as “discretionary decisions” that would remain whether or not the parole terms were declared void or expunged. Ante, at 632-633. This reasoning has no basis in Illinois law and appears to derive from nothing more than judicial intuition.

Several collateral consequences attach to parole violations under Illinois law. First, a sentencing judge may consider parole violations in aggravation of sentence. The majority makes the unwarranted assumption that declaring void the parole term upon which a violation is based has no effect because a sentencing judge would consider the conduct underlying the violation, and not the violation itself, in deciding whether to enhance a sentence. However, as the majority recognizes, there is no way for this Court to determine the basis for respondents’ parole revocation. Under Illinois law, the Prisoner Review Board is given substantial discretion in setting conditions of parole. See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 1003-3-7 (Supp. 1980). Conditions of parole may prohibit conduct that is otherwise innocent and may affirmatively require the parolee to engage in specified work or rehabilitation programs. Parole may be revoked upon a finding that the parolee has violated any of these parole conditions. See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 1003-3-9 (Supp. 1980); Illinois Prisoner Review Board, Rules Governing Parole 9-10, 13-16 (1979), 3 Ill. Register 144, 162-166 (1979). Therefore, conduct giving rise to a parole violation may be completely innocuous but for the fact that it was prohibited or required as a condition of parole, and it may be entirely irrelevant to a sentencing decision once the parole term is declared void.

Moreover, it is not clear under Illinois law whether a sentencing judge would consider the conduct underlying a parole violation, even if the conduct is not otherwise innocent, where the parole term itself is declared void. In a similar context, the Illinois appellate courts have held that trial courts may not consider a reversed conviction in aggravation of sentence, even where the court, in remanding for a new trial, noted that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict beyond a reasonable doubt and the matter was never retried. See, e. g., People v. Chellew, 20 Ill. App. 3d 963, 313 N. E. 2d 284 (1974). Cf. People v. Wunnenberg, 87 Ill. App. 3d 32, 34, 409 N. E. 2d 101, 103 (1980). The Illinois courts have also held that review of probation revocation is not rendered moot merely because the defendant has served his entire sentence. See People v. Halterman, 45 Ill. App. 3d 605, 608, 359 N. E. 2d 1223, 1225 (1977) (challenge to probation revocation not moot because “the fact that the defendant has had his probation revoked might be submitted to another judge for his consideration in sentencing the defendant if he has the misfortune of again being convicted of some crime”). These cases do not conclusively demonstrate that a judge would not consider the conduct underlying the violation of a void parole term in aggravation of sentence. However, they cast serious doubt on the validity of the majority’s assumption to the contrary. Furthermore, the State argued to the Court of Appeals that the case was not moot because the State “is deeply interested in whether or not it can use the parole violation status of [respondents] for sentencing purposes should they ever again come into contact with the criminal justice system.” Additional Memorandum for Appellants in Nos. 78-1321, 78-1322, 78-1323, 78-1380 (CA7), p. 5 (Mem. to Court of Appeals). This argument at least implies that the State would not use this status for sentencing purposes after a court had declared the parole terms void.

Second, the majority completely overlooks an important collateral consequence that attaches to parole violations should the respondents ever have the misfortune of returning to prison. In rules promulgated by the Prisoner Review Board pursuant to Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶¶ 1003-3-1, 1003-3-2 (Supp. 1980), the State of Illinois has set forth fairly specific criteria upon which parole may be denied. See Illinois Prisoner Review Board, Rules Governing Parole (1979), 3 Ill. Register 144-169 (1979). The Rules provide in relevant part:

“V. BASIS FOR DENYING PAROLE
In accordance with statute, the Board shall not parole a candidate if it determines that:
“A. There is a substantial risk that the candidate will not conform to reasonable conditions of parole based on one or more of the following factors:
“1. Existence of prior adult felony convictions (mitigating as well as aggravating factors to be considered).
“2. An apparent pattern of aggressive or assaultive behavior (misdemeanor offenses also considered).
“3. Prior adult parole or probation violations within five years prior to the present offense.
“4. Refusal to be supervised on parole.
“5. No means of financial support or no place of residence. (Continuance not to exceed six months to seek resolution of problem.)
“6. A psychiatric examination determines the candidate is not likely to conform.” Illinois Prisoner Review Board, Rules Governing Parole 6 (1979), 3 Ill. Register 153 (1979) (emphasis added).

Under these rules, parole may be denied simply on the basis of a prior parole violation; the conduct underlying the parole violation is apparently irrelevant unless it falls within one of the other criteria listed in that section. We have no reason to assume that the conduct underlying respondents’ violations would fall within one of the other factors, or that the Prisoner Review Board would deny parole based on a parole violation notwithstanding the fact that the parole term had been declared void. In fact, the State argued to the Court of Appeals that the case was not moot because respondents “still have a substantial stake in ensuring that their parole terms are, indeed, expunged,” because the parole violations would be burdensome if respondents were ever again considered for parole. Mem. to Court of Appeals 5. See also United States ex rel. Howell v. Wolff, No. 78 C 951 (ND Ill. Aug. 9, 1978) (unpublished opinion of Judge Leighton, reprinted in App. to Mem. to Court of Appeals) (finding case not moot due to potential burden on future'parole decision from parole-violation status).

KH 1 — 4

Today s decision, in which the majority undertakes a cursory and misleading examination of state law, starkly demonstrates the wisdom of applying the doctrine of Carafas and Sibron to the determination whether a State attaches collateral consequences to parole violations. I would apply that doctrine, presume the existence of collateral consequences, and reach the merits of this case. Even if the doctrine of Carafas and Sibron does not apply, an examination of state law reveals that the majority is wrong in concluding that actual collateral consequences do not attach under state law; there are sufficient collateral consequences flowing from parole-violation status that both the State and the respondents have a live interest in this Court’s resolution of the constitutional question. Therefore, I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that this case is moot.

       See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 1005-8-1 (1975). The mandatory parole requirement was first imposed by the Illinois Legislature in 1972. 1972 Ill. Laws, P. A. 77-2097, §5-8-1. At the time that Williams pleaded guilty, the mandatory parole term for the offense of burglary was three years; however, Illinois law also provided that “[t]he Parole and Pardon Board may enter an order releasing and discharging a parolee from parole and his commitment to the Department when it determines that he is likely to remain at liberty without committing another offense.” § 3-3-8 (current version Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 1003-3-8 (Supp. 1980)). In 1978 the parole requirement was amended by the Illinois Legislature and reduced, for the offense in question, to two years. 1977 Ill. Laws, P. A. 80-1099, §3.
      In People v. Wills, 61 Ill. 2d 105, 330 N. E. 2d 505 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 999, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the mandatory parole term is one of the consequences of a guilty plea that must be explained to the defendant before such a plea may be accepted. The court also held, however, that its decision should not be applied retroactively; thus, during the period between January 1, 1973, when the mandatory parole requirement became effective, and May 19, 1975, when Wills was decided, there was no state-law requirement that a defendant be advised of the parole requirement before pleading guilty.

       The petition also requested “[a]ny further relief that [the] Court deems appropriate and just in this [m]atter.” App. 13.

       Although the denial of the motion to reconsider is dated January 27, 1978, it was not entered until February 2,1978. Williams was released on February 1, 1978.

       Southall began serving his sentence on October 8, 1974, the date of his arrest. He was released on parole on September 22,1975. On October 8, 1976 — well within the 3-year period that Southall was told he could be subject to the control of the Illinois Department of Corrections — he was declared a parole violator “as of November 1, 1975.” The record does not disclose the nature of this parole violation.

       Southall did not allege that he did not know of the parole requirement at the time he pleaded guilty. Southall simply alleged that “[he] was not previously aware that [he] would be detained on violation of mandatory parole.” Id., at 65.

       The District Court’s original order commanding Southall’s release was stayed until further order of the court, to permit the State to file the motion for reconsideration. Although the record does not contain an order terminating the stay, the Court of Appeals subsequently indicated that Southall had been released pursuant to the District Court’s order. 594 F. 2d 614, 615 (CA7 1979).

       The court did not identify these collateral effects or adverse consequences. It found the situation “similar in principle,” however, to that considered in Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U. S. 234.

       In subsequent proceedings in the District Court, some uncertainty existed concerning the current effect of the parole term on Southall, since he had been returned to custody after committing a new offense. In its brief in this Court, however, the State declares that, as to the sentence at issue here, Southall was “totally discharged from the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections as of October 24, 1979.” Brief for Petitioner 10. Our holding that his case is moot is based on the understanding that the State may not subject Southall to any further detention or restraint as a result of the mandatory parole term at issue in this case.

       Cf. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238; Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257; Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U. S. 637. We do not decide whether, to establish such a constitutional violation, respondents must claim that they in fact did not know of the parole requirement at the time they pleaded guilty or that they would not have pleaded guilty had they known of this consequence.

       Since this relief would free respondents from collateral, as well as direct, consequences of a criminal conviction, the case would not be moot even if the previous sentence had been served and the State indicated that it would not seek a retrial. Carafas v. LaVallee, supra.

       Williams’ general prayer for “[a]ny further relief that [the] Court deems appropriate and just in this [m]atter” — or the fact that the District Court may have inherent power to fashion an appropriate remedy for the violation of a constitutional right — is not equivalent to a specific request by respondents to set aside their convictions. We need not decide here whether respondents would ever be entitled to relief other than the opportunity to plead anew. Unless respondents requested such relief, however, it surely would not be appropriate to enter an order that would subject them to the risk of retrial after their sentences had been served.

       The State of Illinois has chosen to define narrowly the collateral civil penalties that attach even to a conviction of a criminal offense; generally, collateral consequences do not extend beyond the completion of the sentence or the release from imprisonment. See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 1005-5-5 (Supp. 1980).

       In his dissenting opinion, Justice Marshall argues that this case is not moot because a possibility exists under state law that respondents’ parole violations may be considered in a subsequent parole determination. This “collateral consequence” is insufficient to bring this case within the doctrine of Carafas. That case concerned existing civil disabilities; as a result of the petitioner’s conviction, he was presently barred from holding certain offices, voting in state elections, and serving as a juror. This case involves no such disability. The parole violations that remain a part of respondents’ records cannot affect a subsequent parole determination unless respondents again violate state law, are returned to prison, and become eligible for parole. Respondents themselves are able — and indeed required by law — to prevent such a possibility from occurring. Moreover, the existence of a prior parole violation does not render an individual ineligible for parole under Illinois law. It is simply one factor, among many, that may be considered by the parole authority in determining whether there is a substantial risk that the parole candidate will not conform to reasonable conditions of parole.
      Collateral review of a final judgment is not an endeavor to be undertaken lightly. It is not warranted absent a showing that the complainant suffers actual harm from the judgment that he seeks to avoid.

       The District Court’s order did not require the Warden to expunge or make any change in any portion of respondents’ records. Nor have respondents ever requested such relief.

       The majority makes a cryptic reference to the fact that respondents did not request the District Court to expunge or make any change in their records. Ante, at 633, n. 14. The failure to make this request is easily explained on several grounds and is irrelevant to the question whether this case is moot. The respondents did request that the District Court “expunge” the parole terms on which the violations were based. This “expungement” would have the effect of removing respondents’ parole-violation status and would relieve respondents of the collateral consequences flowing from this status. Any further “expungement” that respondents might obtain should be requested in future state proceedings. The State of Illinois has a very limited expungement procedure that would not cover the expungement to which the majority apparently refers. See Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 206-5 (Supp. 1980) (person, not convicted of any previous criminal offense, who is acquitted or released without conviction may petition the court for expungement of arrest records).
      Furthermore, the State of Illinois has no procedure to expunge convictions that are later reversed or vacated on appeal, but this fact, or the failure of a habeas petitioner to request that a federal district court accord him relief that is unavailable under state law, would hardly render moot a ha-beas petition to set aside a conviction unconstitutionally obtained. The Illinois courts may not consider a reversed conviction in aggravation of sentence, despite the fact that the records of this conviction have not been officially “expunged.” See, e. g., People v. Wunnenberg, 87 Ill. App. 3d 32, 409 N. E. 2d 101 (1980); People v. Chellew, 20 Ill. App. 3d 963, 313 N. E. 2d 284 (1974).

       Of course, the existence of express statutory civil disabilities is not a prerequisite to holding that a habeas challenge to a criminal conviction is not moot. See, e. g., Sibron v. New York, 892 U. S. 40, 54-57 (1968) (discussing Fiswick v. United States, 392 U. S. 211 (1946)); United States v. Morgan, 346 U. S. 502 (1954); Pollard v. United States, 352 U. S. 354 (1957)).

       Paragraph 1003-3-7 provides:
      “(a) The conditions of parole or mandatory supervised release shall be such as the Prisoner Keview Board deems necessary to assist the subject in leading a law-abiding life. The conditions of every parole and mandatory supervised release are that the subject:
      “(1) not violate any criminal statute . . . ; and
      “(2) refrain from possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon.
      “(b) The Board may in addition to other conditions require that the subject:
      “(1) work or pursue a course of study or vocational training;
      “(2) undergo medical or psychiatric treatment, or treatment for drug addiction or alcoholism;
      “(3) attend or reside in a facility established for the instruction or residence of persons on probation or parole;
      “(4) support his dependents;
      “(5) report to an agent of the Department of Corrections;
      “(6) permit the agent to visit him at his home or elsewhere to the extent necessary to discharge his duties . . .” (emphasis added).

        See also Illinois Prisoner Review Board, Rules Governing Parole 9-12 (1979), 3 Ill. Register 158-160 (1979).