Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Effie Stewart v. J. Kenneth Blackwell

Effie Stewart v. J. Kenneth Blackwell, 473 F.3d 692 (6th Cir. 2007)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
2007-01-12
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • stating that “vacatur is generally appropriate to avoid entrenching a decision rendered unreviewable through no fault of the losing party”
  • vacated and superseded on the grounds that the case was rendered moot by the county's subsequent abandonment of the DRE machines at issue

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Effie Stewart v. J. Kenneth Blackwell. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
19 opinions
STEWART v. BLACKWELL,473 F.3d 692(6th Cir. 2007)
Effie STEWART, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J. Kenneth BLACKWELL, et
al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-3044.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
January 12, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,356 F.Supp.2d 791.Page 693
Richard Saphire, The University of Dayton Law School, Dayton, OH, Laughlin McDonald, Meredith E.B. Bell-Platts, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Atlanta, GA, Daniel P. Tokaji, Ohio State University College of Law, Columbus, OH, Paul F. Moke, Wilmington College, Wilmington, OH, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Sharon A. Jennings, Asst. Atty. General, Stephen P. Carney, Douglas R. Cole, Office of the Attorney General of Ohio, Mark D. Landes, Jeffrey A. Stankunas, Isaac, Brant, Ledman Teetor, Richard N. Coglianese, Office of the Attorney General Employment Law Section, Holly J. Hunt, Ohio Attorney General's Office Constitutional Offices Section, Columbus, OH, Victor T. Whisman, Office of the Prosecuting Attorney for the County of Montgomery, Dayton, OH, Anita L. Davis, Summit County Prosecutor's Office, Akron, OH, David Todd Stevenson, Hamilton County Prosecuting Office, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER
The plaintiffs, having agreed with the defendants before en banc review that this appeal has become moot, request that this Court vacate the district court's judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss.

"When a civil case becomes moot pending appellate adjudication, `the established practice . . . in the federal system . . . is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss.'"Coalition for Gov't Procurement v. FederalPrison Indus., Inc.,365 F.3d 435,484(6th Cir.2004) (quotingUnited States v. Munsingwear, Inc.,340 U.S. 36,39,71 S.Ct. 104,95 L.Ed. 36(1950)). This practice is not applicable in all cases: "Vacatur is in order when mootness occurs through happenstance — circumstances not attributable to the parties — or . . . the `unilateral action of the party who prevailed in the lower court.'"Arizonans for Official English v. Ariz.,520 U.S. 43,71-72,117 S.Ct. 1055,137 L.Ed.2d 170(1997) (quotingU.S.Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship,513 U.S. 18,26,115 S.Ct. 386,130 L.Ed.2d 233(1994)). In other words, vacatur is generally appropriate to avoid entrenching a decision rendered unreviewable through no fault of the losing party.

Though some of the County defendants suggest that the plaintiffs themselves were responsible for rendering this case moot by conceding mootness in their letter of November 30, 2006, the State correctly recognizes that it "caused the mootness by abandoning the election machines that Plaintiffs attacked." The State contends, however, that the changes that led to the case's mootness stemmed inexorably from commitments made before the decision of the district court, and in response not to the litigation itself in an effort to evade an adverse judgment, but in response to policy concerns and changes in federal law. Whatever the truth of these contentions, they in no way render the plaintiffs responsible for the current posture of the case. Nor does the contention of several defendants that plaintiffs should have conceded mootness at an earlier stage of the proceedings compel the conclusion that, by acting inequitably, the plaintiffs cannot now seek the equitable remedy of vacatur. Although the overall costs of this litigation would have been reduced, the plaintiffs were under no obligation to accept the defendants' assurances that mootness was inevitable.Page 694

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss as moot.Page 398