“Section 1396a(a)(19) is not the sort of specific condition for receipt of federal funds which can be said to create substantive 28 rights in Medicaid recipients.”
How later courts described this case
- “Section 1396a(a)(19) is not the sort of specific condition for receipt of federal funds which can be said to create substantive 28 rights in Medicaid recipients.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FLETCHER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because this case is moot and no “case or controversy” presently exists over which this court has jurisdiction. 1
*688 Plaintiffs originally filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the threatened closure of Edgefield Manor. Edgefield Manor is now closed. According to affidavit filed by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, the last resident of Edgefield was transferred to another nursing facility and Edgefield, itself, was closed on April 20, 1982.
Moreover, the ultimate closure of Edge-field Manor occurred with plaintiffs’ full assistance. Plaintiffs provided the County with much of the technical information necessary to minimize the risk of harm inherent in these patient transfers. They negotiated the conditions of each of the transfers with the County according to rules which plaintiffs counsel were successful in promoting for all Oregon nursing home residents. Accordingly, no remedy sought by the plaintiffs in this suit remains to be granted. The “federal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 , 92 S.Ct. 402, 404 , 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971). When during the pendency of an appeal events occur such as those described here that obviate the possibility of meaningful relief, the court must dismiss the appeal as moot, DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 , 94 S.Ct. 1704 , 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974), and vacate the lower court judgment as well, Great Western Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U.S. 92 , 99 S.Ct. 2149 , 60 L.Ed.2d 735 (1979). Under certain limited circumstances a case remains justiciable though the issue before the court is moot, to wit: the challenged action is too brief in duration to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration and there is a reasonable expectation that the complaining party will be subject to the same action again. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 , 98 S.Ct. 1407 , 55 L.Ed.2d 707 (1978). No such circumstances exist here. I would therefore dismiss the appeal as moot and vacate the judgment of the district court.
. No formal motion for dismissal has been filed by either party. However, plaintiffs in the present case have filed a Suggestion of Mootness with supporting affidavit. Jurisdictional issues such as mootness may be raised sua sponte by the court. See Great Western Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U.S. 92 , 99 S.Ct. 2149 , 60 L.Ed.2d 735 (1979) (Suggestion of Mootness *688 filed by party); DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 , 94 S.Ct. 1704 , 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974) (parties requested by the court to brief the issue of mootness).