David Bailey v. Bryan Collier
677 F. App'x 915
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Prisoners at the Wallace Pack Unit alleged Eighth Amendment violations from extreme summer heat mitigated mainly by drinking water that exceeded EPA arsenic limits.
- Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction on May 23, 2016, seeking drinking water that conformed to EPA arsenic MCLs.
- The district court granted a preliminary injunction on June 21, 2016, requiring TDCJ to provide water meeting EPA arsenic standards from July 6 through September 22, 2016.
- The injunction expired automatically on September 23, 2016 under the PLRA, and plaintiffs did not seek an extension to preserve appellate review.
- TDCJ appealed, arguing the case raised issues capable of repetition yet evading review; the Fifth Circuit examined mootness and vacatur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is moot after the preliminary injunction expired | The underlying conditions persist (heat + arsenic) so review should proceed | The injunction expired and thus there is nothing to review; any exception does not apply | Appeal is moot; exception (capable of repetition yet evading review) not satisfied |
| Whether the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception applies | Future recurrence is likely because conditions (heat, arsenic) are ongoing | TDCJ said Pack Unit will have a new filtration system by next summer; no reasonable expectation same injunction will recur | Exception inapplicable; no reasonable expectation injunction will be reissued against TDCJ |
| Whether vacatur of the district court’s order is appropriate | Plaintiffs implicitly sought to preserve the injunction; vacatur would harm prisoners' interests | Vacatur appropriate because plaintiffs allowed the injunction to lapse unilaterally, preventing review | Court vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction order |
| What the case should be remanded for | Plaintiffs: continue to litigate conditions of confinement claims | TDCJ: implement filtration and defend on merits if sued again | Case dismissed as moot, vacated, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Goudeau v. Dental Health Servs., Inc., 125 F.3d 852 (5th Cir. 1997) (mootness is jurisdictional and an expired injunction is generally not reviewable)
- Briggs & Stratton Corp. v. Local 232, Int'l Union, Allied Indus. Workers of Am., 36 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 1994) (an injunction that expires by its terms is typically moot)
- Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801 (4th Cir. 2013) (elements and burden for capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review doctrine)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (capable-of-repetition doctrine applies only in exceptional situations)
- Staley v. Harris Cty., Tex., 485 F.3d 305 (5th Cir. 2007) (vacatur analysis requires balancing equities; dicta on vacatur when mootness results from prevailing party’s unilateral action)
- U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (discussing vacatur when mootness results from unilateral action of the prevailing party)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur prevents unreviewable judgments from having legal consequences)