Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case

[Friedman, Howard M.]

The district court's opinion that found the request for an injunction
and declaratory relief to be moot also dismissed the damage claim on the
merits. Here is the court's language:

 

"This Court agrees with plaintiffs' assessment. Accordingly, this Court
finds plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief are now moot. This Court notes that it previously
dismissed plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's damages claims against all
defendants in their official capacities on Eleventh Amendment immunity
grounds and against the individual defendants in their personal
capacities on qualified immunity grounds.... That ruling was not
disturbed by the Ninth Circuit.... Although plaintiffs "respectfully
disagree" with this Court's qualified immunity ruling, plaintiffs
indicate the inclusion of plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's damages claims
in the second amended complaint was done to avoid waiving the claims on
appeal.... This Court reaffirms its prior dismissal of plaintiff Tyler
Chase Harper's damages claims. Accordingly, because plaintiff Tyler
Chase Harper's damages claims have been dismissed and his injunctive and
declaratory relief claims are moot, all of plaintiff Tyler Chase
Harper's claims are no longer viable. Therefore, Tyler Chase Harper is
DISMISSED as a plaintiff in this case."

 

Here is a link to the district court's opinion: 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/images/070124tshirt.pdf

 

Howard Friedman

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
ArtSpitzer at aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 4:03 PM
To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case

 


In a message dated 3/5/07 3:38:06 PM, stcynic at crystalauto.com writes:
      I'm confused by this ruling. 


The Supreme Court's order only instructs the court of appeals "to
dismiss the appeal as moot." (Emphasis added.)   The appeal was
apparently only from the district court's denial of petitioner's
(plaintiff's) motion for a preliminary injunction.  The request for an
injunction is moot because the plaintiff graduated.  But Prof.
Friedman's blog says that the compliant also  sought damages; that claim
could not be rendered moot by the plaintiff's graduation and presumably
remains pending in the district court, where it will still require a
decision on the merits, unless the case settles.

What confuses me, though, is that the Supreme Court's order states that
"The district court, however, has now entered final judgment dismissing
petitioner's claims for injunctive relief as moot."  Ordinarily, a
district court could not enter a "final judgment" unless it dispopsed of
all claims against all parties.  I wonder if the district court here
entered a partial final judgment under the special procedure of Rule
54(b), or if someone (the district judge, the Supreme Court, Prof.
Friedman, me) is just confused?

Art Spitzer
Washington DC









**************************************
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at http://www.aol.com. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20070305/2f783f4f/attachment.html