Fins-IPG-27
Appellate panel judgment affirming dismissal of complaint 
(entered Sept. 13, 1999)





		United States Court of Appeals
		 For the District of Columbia
			----------

No. 98-5136                  		September Term, 1999

Vigdor Schreibman,                   	96cv1287
Appellant				[entered Sep 13, 1999}

v.

David W. Holmes, Secretary for 
the Executive Committee of
Correspondents, et al.,
Appellees


	Appeal from the United States District Court
		for the District of Columbia

	Before: Wald, Silberman, and Tatel, Circuit Judges


				JUDGMENT

  This cause came to be heard on the record on appeal from the United 
States District Court for the District of Columbia and was briefed and 
argued by counsel.  While the issues presented occasion no need for a 
published opinion, they have been accorded full consideration by the 
Court.  See D.C. Cir. R. 36(b).  On consideration thereof, it is

  ORDERED and ADJUDGED by this Court, that the judgment of the District
Court appealed from in this cause is hereby affirmed. Although 
appellant sought press credentials in 1996, and although press 
credentials are valid for only one year, this case is not moot, 
because the issue it presents is "capable of repetition, yet evading 
review."  See Southern Pac. Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515 
(1911).  The one-year duration of a press credential is too short to 
permit the issue to be fully litigated, and there is a reasonable 
likelihood, cf. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988), that appellant 
will again be subjected to the same action by appellees.

  The Executive Committee of Correspojndence enjoys immunity under 
the Speech or Debate Clause, U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 6, cl. 1., 
because making decisions about whom to admit to congressional 
galleries is a legislative function.  See Consumers Union of the 
United States, Inc. v. Periodical Correspondents' Ass'n., 515 F.2d 
1341 (D.C. Cir. 1975).  (The issue of whether immunity could extend 
to the physical exclusion of appellant from the gallery is not 
presented here, because appellant did not name the Sergeant at Arms 
as a defendant).  Whatever room for a "bad faith" exception to 
legislative immunity may have been left open by Consumers Union, see 
id. at 1250, appellant's allegations cannot qualify for the exeption. 
To be sure, there is no heightened pleading standard for bad faith. 
Cf. FED.R.CIV. P.9(b).  Nevertheless, a plaintiff must at least be 
able to articulate what the bias or animus is that constitutes the 
claimed "bad faith," and appellant has failed to do so.  It is

  FURTHER ORDERED, by this Court, sua sponte, that the Clerk shall 
withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after 
disposition of any timely petition for rehearing.  See D.C. Cir.R.41(a)
(1).  This instruction to the Clerk is without prejudice to the right 
of any party at any time to move for expedited issuance of the mandate 
for good cause shown.

					Per Curiam
					For the Court
					(s)
					Mark J. Langer, Clerk