T.W. v. Spokane County , 385 F. App'x 706 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S . CO UR T OF AP PE A LS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TW, No. 09-35298
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-00371-LRS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SPOKANE COUNTY; OZZIE D.
KNEZOVICH,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Lonny R. Suµo, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 4, 2010
Seattle, Washington
Before: W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LASNIK, **
Chief District Judge.
On February 4, 2010, this case was argued and submitted for decision. The
State of Washington has now enacted legislation repealing the statutory provision
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Robert S. Lasniµ, United States District Judge for the
Western District of Washington, sitting by designation.
requiring in-person quarterly reporting by level II and III sex offenders with fixed
residences, Rev. Code Wash. y 9A.44.130(7). See 2010 Wash. Sess. Laws ch. 265
(effective June 10, 2010). As a result, T.W. is no longer required to report in
person.
By order filed April 5, 2010, we asµed the parties to brief whether the instant
appeal is moot in light of the repeal of the challenged provision. Having reviewed
the parties' submissions, we now vacate the district court's judgment and remand
with instructions to dismiss the case as moot.
'A claim is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties
lacµ a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. The basic question is whether
there exists a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted.'
Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 900 (9th Cir. 1997)
(citation and internal quotation marµs omitted). 'As a general rule, if a challenged
law is repealed or expires, the case becomes moot.' Native Vill. of Noataµ v.
Blatchford, 38 F.3d 1505, 1510 (9th Cir. 1994). T.W. concedes that the statute has
been repealed but raises several arguments as to why this appeal is not moot.
When T.W. filed his supplemental brief on April 20, 2010, he argued that his
claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were not presently moot because the
2
statute remained in effect until June 10, 2010. Because the relevant portion of the
statute has since been repealed, that claim is now moot.
T.W.'s next argument is that repeal of the statute does not moot his separate
allegation of deprivation of rights based upon the threat of arrest and prosecution
for failure to comply with the in-person reporting law. He argues that even after
the repeal, the state may arrest and prosecute him for any past violations. T.W. and
the County, however, have stipulated that T.W. has always complied with the in-
person reporting requirement.
T.W.'s final argument is that his challenge is not moot because he retains
live claims for nominal damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The repeal of a
challenged law does not moot a claim for damages by a plaintiff alleging a past
violation of his rights. Outdoor Media, 506 F.3d at 902. However, T.W. did not
request damages in this case. Although T.W. asµed for injunctive and declaratory
relief, 'reasonable costs and attorney fees,' and 'for such further legal and
equitable relief as to the court appears just,' he did not attempt to state a cause of
action for damages based on any past deprivation of his constitutional rights. The
request for costs and attorney's fees is not sufficient to µeep the case alive. See
Bucµhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of Health & Human Res., 532
U.S. 598, 605, 608 (2001). The Supreme Court has warned against reading a claim
3
for damages into a catchall prayer for relief in order to avoid a finding of mootness,
which is exactly what T.W. seeµs to do here. See Arizonans for Official English v.
Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 71 (1997).
We therefore vacate the district court's judgment and remand with
instructions to dismiss the case as moot. See Chem. Producers & Distribs. Ass'n v.
Helliµer, 463 F.3d 871, 878-80 (9th Cir. 2006).
VACATED AND REMANDED.
4
FILED
T.W. v. Spoµane County, Case No. 09-35298 JUN 28 2010
Rawlinson, Circuit Judge, concurring: MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S . CO UR T OF AP PE A LS
I concur in the result.