Opinion

Daniel DILLEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryan S. GUNN, Warden; Norma Wells; Sgt. Butler; B. Schelke, Defendants-Appellants

  • 64 F.3d 1365
  • 95 Daily Journal DAR 12145
  • 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7120
  • 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25264
  • 1995 WL 527610
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Filed
Sep 8, 1995
Status
Published
Author
Fernandez
On the bench
Fletcher, Wiggins, Fernandez
Cited by
319 cases
Authority
More cited than 25.9%

holding that “[a]n inmate’s release 18 from prison while his claims are pending generally will moot any claims for injunctive relief 19 relating to the prison’s policies unless the suit has been certified as a class action

How later courts described this case

  • holding that “[a]n inmate’s release 18 from prison while his claims are pending generally will moot any claims for injunctive relief 19 relating to the prison’s policies unless the suit has been certified as a class action
  • concluding that prisoner’s claims for injunctive relief were moot because he was transferred to another prison and had not demonstrated a reasonable expectation that he would be transferred back
  • holding that “[a]n inmate’s release from prison while his claims are pending generally will moot any claims for injunctive relief relating to the 28 1 of Civil Procedure 4(b
  • holding that given the number of similar claims that are prosecuted in courts, the plaintiff could not reasonably argue the action was too short in duration to be subject to litigation

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judge,

concurring:

I concur in the majority opinion with one . caveat. I think it would be the rarest of rare cases when an injunction could continue in full force and effect even though the matter had become moot.

Injunctions are not general statutes. They run in favor of a party and direct the other party to do something for the first party’s benefit. If the first party can no longer have any legal interest in the relief in question, it is most difficult to see how the injunction can possibly remain in place. I know of no case of ours which even hints that it can. See, e.g., Sample v. Borg, 870 F.2d 563 (9th Cir.1989); Kitlutsisti v. ARCO Alaska, Inc., 782 F.2d 800, 801 (9th Cir.1986). Of course, that is not to say that all of the findings which support the injunction must be dismantled. They could be left in place, just as findings supporting any other judgment could be. But the relief itself — the injunction — must fall. At least, it must in every case that I can foresee.

However, because my powers of vaticination are not infinite, on the off chance that some confluence of circumstances will show that this injunction can continue, I concur. Thus, with misgivings, I refrain from joining the ranks of those who have predicted that some event or other could never possibly happen.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.