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

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · September 8, 1995 · 64 F.3d 1365

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488485

## Case

- **Full name:** 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7120, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,145 Daniel Dilley v. Bryan S. Gunn, Warden Norma Wells Sgt. Butler B. Schelke
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 8, 1995
- **Citations:** 64 F.3d 1365; 95 Daily Journal DAR 12145; 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7120; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 25264; 1995 WL 527610
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Fernandez
- **Judges:** Fletcher, Wiggins, Fernandez
- **Cited by:** 319 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488485

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- noting that we will only vacate a judgment of a district court if it is appealed to this court

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9488485. Public record. Not legal advice.