Springer v. US Marshal , 137 F. App'x 657 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 16, 2005
_______________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-40551
_______________________
GREG SPRINGER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
JAVIER MANCHA, in his official capacity as mayor of the
City of Encinal; SEAN CHADWELL, in his personal and official
capacity as a council member for the City of Encinal,
Intervenors Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
U. S. MARSHAL, The United States Marshal’s Service,
Defendant-Appellee,
U. S. MARSHAL,
Intervenor Defendant-Appellee,
LASALLE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES DETENTION CORPORATION;
LASALLE COUNTY, TEXAS,
Intervenors-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
5:03-CV-1
Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellants seek a review of the district court’s denial
of a temporary injunction in this National Environmental Policy Act
(“NEPA”) case, and they seek a remand with instructions to
(1) issue an injunction prohibiting any further funding by the
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
federal government of the LaSalle County Detention Center and
(2) requiring further consideration of the issues outlined by the
trial court at a February 12, 2004, status conference. Having
carefully reviewed the briefs and pertinent portions of the record
in this case, we conclude that because the case as a whole has
become moot, we must remand for dismissal and need not reach the
denial of preliminary injunction.
The mootness of a controversy is a jurisdictional issue
that we must raise sua sponte. To qualify as a case for federal
adjudication, a case or controversy must exist at all stages of the
litigation, not just at the time the suit was filed. Harris v.
City of Houston, 151 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1989). Whether a case
is moot is a question of law that this court reviews de novo. Id.
This court has consistently held that when a construction project
is complete and operating, plaintiffs can obtain no meaningful
judicial relief based on alleged non-compliance with NEPA, and
their cases are moot. See Bayou Liberty Ass’n v. U.S. Army Corps,
217 F.3d 393, 396-98 (5th Cir. 2000); Richland Park Homeowners
Ass’n v. Pierce, 671 F.2d 935, 950 (5th Cir. 1982). Appellants’
contention is that because the U. S. Marshals Service conducted an
inadequate and “bad faith” environmental assessment of the proposal
to construct a detention facility for use by the federal government
in LaSalle County, the federal courts must shut down the facility
until NEPA is more strictly followed. The problem with their
argument at this juncture is that the Marshals Service contributed
2
its three million dollars to funding the construction of the
detention facility, construction was completed in March 2004, and
the facility is presently housing a full complement of three
hundred detainees, paying LaSalle County for this service at a
daily rate per inmate.
The granting of relief requiring further NEPA documenta-
tion would avail the plaintiffs nothing. Moreover, their request
to eliminate federal funding from the detention center is
completely at odds with the public interest, inasmuch as it would
create serious economic problems for LaSalle County, would disad-
vantage the federal government’s ongoing efforts to house inmates
in south Texas, and would either lead to the closure of the
facility or its sale, after foreclosure, to another operator who
might not have to comply with NEPA at all. These factors,
carefully articulated by the district court as weighing heavily
against the grant of preliminary injunctive relief, also serve to
demonstrate why no further effective judicial relief can be granted
in this case.
Because this case is now moot, we need not rule on the
district court’s denial of Appellants’ request for a preliminary
injunction.
ACCORDINGLY, THIS CASE IS REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO
DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE.
3