In Re: Da Graca v.
20-2117O
| 1st Cir. | Jun 22, 2021Background
- Petitioners (multiple detainees) sought a writ of mandamus to reverse the district court's denial of bail pending final resolution of their habeas claims; the panel denied that mandamus request on March 17, 2021.
- Petitioners filed petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc; while those petitions were pending, the district court approved a class settlement in Savino v. Souza (D. Mass. May 13, 2021), which the parties agree mooted the mandamus issues.
- Petitioners moved to vacate the panel's March 17, 2021 decision and judgment on the ground that the underlying dispute was now moot; respondents opposed vacatur.
- The panel applied the Supreme Court's vacatur principles from U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship and held vacatur is an equitable remedy available only in "extraordinary circumstances," which were absent here because the settlement was voluntary.
- Petitioners argued Bonner Mall did not control and instead urged application of the two-sentence Stewart per curiam; the panel rejected that, finding Bonner Mall is controlling precedent on post-settlement vacatur.
- Petitioners further argued that ICE's later decision to close the Bristol County House of Correction independently mooted the case; the panel rejected this because ICE's action post-dated the settlement that already produced mootness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the panel's opinion and judgment should be vacated after the case became moot due to a settlement | Vacatur required because the case is now moot; relief should wipe out the panel decision | Vacatur improper; settlement was voluntary so equitable vacatur unavailable absent extraordinary circumstances | Denied vacatur; Bonner Mall governs and no extraordinary circumstances exist |
| Which precedent controls vacatur requests after settlement: Stewart or Bonner Mall | Stewart's per curiam supports vacatur when a case is settled after decision | Bonner Mall is the Supreme Court's latest, controlling statement limiting vacatur after settlement | Bonner Mall controls; Stewart does not override it |
| Whether ICE's later decision to close the detention facility independently moots the case and alters vacatur analysis | Facility closure moots dispute and makes Bonner Mall inapplicable | Closure post-dates and is irrelevant to mootness caused by the voluntary settlement | Rejected: closure post-dated settlement; mootness was attributable to parties' settlement |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (vacatur is an equitable remedy generally unavailable when mootness results from a voluntary settlement absent extraordinary circumstances)
- Stewart v. Southern Railway Co., 315 U.S. 784 (1942) (per curiam vacating judgment after settlement)
- Karcher v. May, 484 U.S. 72 (1987) (mootness inquiry distinguishes circumstances attributable to the parties from those that are not)
- Mahoney v. Babbitt, 113 F.3d 219 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (recognizing Bonner Mall as controlling Supreme Court authority on vacatur)
- Humphreys v. Drug Enf't Admin., 105 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 1996) (applying Bonner Mall to limit circumstances requiring vacatur)