
    IN RE: Kenneth MOXEY, Debtor, Kenneth Moxey, Debtor-Appellant, v. Robert L. Pryor, et al., Appellees.
    15-3042
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    June 30, 2016
    For Appellant: Kenneth Moxey, pro se, Valley Stream, NY.
    For Appellee Pryor: Justin Logan Rap-paport, Esq., Pryor & Mandelup, West-bury, NY.
    For Appellee MPJM Crush Holdings, LLC; V-Jama Holdings, LLC; MAAAS Enterprises, LP; Tuthill Finance LP: Bruce L. Weiner, Esq., Rosenberg Musso & Weiner LLP, Brooklyn, NY.
    For Appellee Tuthill Finance LP: Bruce Minkoff, Esq., Robinowitz Cohlan Dubow & Doherty LLP, White Plains, NY.
    PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, GUIDO CALABRESI, REENA RAGGI, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Kenneth Moxey, pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s denial of his request for a protective order limiting the scope of questioning at a deposition concerning whether an attorney assisted Moxey with his pro se filings. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

Because mootness is a jurisdictional question, we have an obligation to address it. Coll. Standard Magazine v. Student Ass’n of State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany, 610 F.3d 33, 35 (2d Cir. 2010). Article III limits federal-court jurisdiction to “cases” and “controversies,” which requires that “an actual controversy ... be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 663, 669, 193 L.Ed.2d 571 (2016) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). If at any point during the lawsuit, “an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit, ... the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot.” Id. In other words, a “case becomes moot ... when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party,” Id.

Moxey’s appeal is moot. The underlying bankruptcy proceeding has concluded; a determination as to the scope of questioning would not matter because Moxey has already been questioned; since Moxey refused to answer the questions, there is no threat that his responses could lead to future litigation such that he was harmed by the bankruptcy court’s decision not to grant the protective order; there is no order requiring him to submit to another deposition; and he is not threatened with sanctions for his refusal to respond. Accordingly, the issue whether Moxey was erroneously denied a protective order limiting the scope of the deposition is moot. We therefore lack jurisdiction over the appeal.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED as moot.  