United States v. Melot (Billy)

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT September 26, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 14-2044
(D.C. No. 2:09-CV-00752-JCH-WPL)
BILLY R. MELOT, (D. N.M.)
Defendant-Appellant,
and
KATHERINE L. MELOT; KLM TRUST;
LEIGH CORPORATION; SUZANNE
CORPORATION; MIRROR FARMS,
INC.; C.D. EXPRESS, INC.,
Defendants.
________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 14-2045
(D.C. No. 2:09-CV-00752-JCH-WPL)
KATHERINE L. MELOT, (D. N.M.)
Defendant-Appellant,
and
BILLY R. MELOT; KLM TRUST;
LEIGH CORPORATION; SUZANNE
CORPORATION; MIRROR FARMS,
INC.; C.D. EXPRESS, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER DISMISSING APPEALS AS MOOT
Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
The district court issued an order for ejectment by the U.S. Marshal. Order
(Mar. 25, 2014) (Doc. 433). Under that order, the Marshal was to forcibly remove
Mrs. Melot and her family from property that had been sold in partial satisfaction of
the Melots’ tax obligations. Mr. and Mrs. Melot appeal, and the United States moves
for dismissal of Mrs. Melot’s appeal on the ground of mootness.1 We grant the
United States’ motion, concluding that the appeals are moot not only for Mrs. Melot,
but also for Mr. Melot.
“In general, a federal court cannot give opinions absent a live case or
controversy before it. A case is moot when it is impossible for the court to grant any
effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party.” Office of Thrift Supervision v.
Overland Park Fin. Corp. (In re Overland Park Fin. Corp.), 236 F.3d 1246, 1254
(10th Cir. 2001) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Though the United
States does not address mootness for Mr. Melot, we must address the issue sua
sponte. See United States v. Hernandez-Garduno, 460 F.3d 1287, 1291 (10th Cir.
2006).
1
The United States moves for dismissal of Mr. Melot’s appeal based on
standing. We need not address Mr. Melot’s standing because his appeal is moot.
-2-
Neither appellant currently resides at the property. And in other appeals (Nos.
13-2225 & 13-2226), the United States informed this court that the property had been
sold on July 21, 2014. Therefore, the Melots cannot resume residing at the property
(even if Mr. Melot were to obtain release from prison). Under these circumstances,
the appeals are moot because we cannot provide any effective relief to either
appellant. See Tymiak v. Omodt, 676 F.2d 306, 308 (8th Cir. 1982) (per curiam)
(holding that a request to enjoin an order of ejectment is moot because the requesting
party had already been evicted from the premises by law enforcement officials).
Accordingly, we grant the United States’ motion to dismiss Mrs. Melot’s appeal and
sua sponte dismiss Mr. Melot’s appeal.
We grant the Melots’ motions for leave to respond out of time and to appear in
forma pauperis.
Entered for the Court
ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
-3-