# Olagues v. Russoniello

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 26, 1986 · 797 F.2d 1511

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8943598

## Case

- **Full name:** Jose J. OLAGUES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Joseph P. RUSSONIELLO, individually and in his capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, Defendants-Appellees Jose J. OLAGUES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Hispanic Coalition for Human Rights, Chinese for Affirmative Action, and San Francisco Latino Voter Registration Education Project v. Joseph P. RUSSONIELLO, individually and in his capacity as United States Attorney for the Northern District of California O'Malley, William A., individually and in his capacity as District Attorney for Santa Clara County Underwood, Lon, Individually and in his capacity as registrar of voters for Contra Costa County Smith, Arlo, individually and in his capacity as District Attorney for San Francisco County
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 26, 1986
- **Citations:** 797 F.2d 1511; 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 28989
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hug
- **Judges:** Hug, Pregerson, Sneed
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Vacated by Russoniello v. Olagues, 484 U.S. 806 (1987).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8943598

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “voluntary cessation of the challenged activity is insufficient to render a case moot if the legality of the challenged practices’ is still disputed because ‘[t]he [official] is free to return to his old ways’ ” (quoting W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. at 362, 73 S.Ct. a…
- holding that U.S. Attorney's vote fraud investigation that targeted recently registered, foreign-born voters who requested bilingual ballots in Spanish or Chinese was subject to strict scrutiny in an equal protection challenge because it amount ed to ethnic discrimination
- holding that an organization whose members were “potential targets of future prosecutions” had standing to seek injunctive relief
- recognizing that federal law prohibits the intentional intimidation of persons voting or aiding someone else to vote

## Opinion text

HUG, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the majority opinion because I conclude the case is moot. The majority opinion acknowledges in Section IV that the appellants cannot, as a matter of law, establish a claim for damages because the government officials are entitled to immunity. Thus, the only possible viable claim is for injunctive or declaratory relief.
As the majority opinion properly notes, claims for declaratory or injunctive relief become moot when the challenged activity ceases, unless one of the limited exceptions identified in the majority opinion comes into play. I find insufficient grounds to invoke an exception.
The investigation was brought about by allegations of particular voter fraud; these were investigated and the matter was dropped, with no charges filed or further investigation sought. There is no threat of continued investigation nor any contention that there is any suspected voter fraud that would again lead to such an investigation. I conclude that there is insufficient indication that there again would be the allegations of voter fraud sufficient to bring about a similar investigation, that the in *1530 vestigation would be pursued in the same fashion, or that the county officials would participate in the same way in such an investigation. Nor do I discern any substantial éontinuing effects from the past investigation sufficient to sustain a finding of a live controversy. Therefore, I conclude that the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are moot under the authority of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 , 103 S.Ct. 1660 , 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983) and O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 , 94 S.Ct. 669 , 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974). I would affirm the summary judgment on the claims for damages and remand the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief to be vacated as moot.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8943598. Public record. Not legal advice.