express the concern that defendants .will “order members of the FOP to disclose the same information in the future as part of another contrived investigation or effort to break the FOP,” this is not reflected in the complaint. See Pis.’ Opp’n at 13-14. Counts II, III, and V focus exclusively on the manner in which this particular investigation was conducted. In instances like this where “a plaintiff has made no challenge to some ongoing underlying policy, but merely attacks an isolated agency action, then the mooting of the specific claim moots any claim for a declaratory judgment that the specific action was unlawful,” unless one of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applies. City of Houston, 24 F.3d at 1429; see also Flynt v. Weinberger, 762 F.2d 134 (D.C.Cir.1985) (per curiam ) (<HOLDING>); Spivey v. Barry, 665 F.2d 1222, 1234-35
holding that a civilian employee injured when her automobile was hit by a military vehicle while she was driving on a road on the employers premises the military base to report to work sustained a compensable injury under the federal employees compensation act holding military service disability payments are community property holding that a former spouse is a proportionate owner of the other spouses future military retirement pay and is thus entitled to onehalf of the percentage of such pay representing the number of military marriage years relative to the total length of military service recognizing that suit against the government for alleged negligence of military club bartender would require questioning of a wide range of military and disciplinary decisions holding that a challenge of the press ban during the military action in grenada was moot after the military action ended because plaintiffs failed to allege ongoing conduct