J.H. Ex Rel. Neal v. Riverside County Office of Education, 691 F. App'x 450

J.H., a student, was ordered by a California ALJ to receive speech and language services from Riverside County Office of Education (RCOE) and for RCOE to petition to intervene in a state juvenile court to identify a locked residential treatment center placement.
RCOE appealed the ALJ’s order, primarily challenging the requirement to petition to intervene and to identify a locked residential placement for J.H.
Before this federal appeal was resolved, RCOE satisfied all ALJ-ordered obligations relevant to the appeal: it provided the services and attempted to intervene; the state juvenile court denied RCOE’s motion to intervene.
J.H. was never placed in a residential treatment center; state-court appeals regarding J.H.’s juvenile proceedings concluded and the record showed no pending collateral attacks.
Because the contested actions had already occurred and could not be undone by the appellate court, the Ninth Circuit concluded it could not grant effective relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is justiciable or moot	RCOE argued ALJ’s order (to petition/intervene and identify placement) was unlawful and should be vacated	Respondent argued the appeal is moot because RCOE has completed the ALJ-ordered actions and no relief can change past events	The Ninth Circuit held the appeal is moot and dismissed it because it cannot grant effective relief
Whether declaratory relief would affect RCOE’s duties	RCOE sought declaratory relief invalidating parts of the ALJ order	Respondent contended a declaration would not alter RCOE’s duties or actions already taken	Court held declaring the ALJ unlawful would serve no purpose; mootness bars review
Whether the court must consider mootness sua sponte	RCOE may not have contended mootness	Court noted its independent duty to examine mootness	Court reaffirmed duty to consider mootness sua sponte and applied it
Whether ancillary motions remain viable (judicial notice)	RCOE requested judicial notice in support of appeal	Respondent argued mootness made ancillary motions irrelevant	Court denied RCOE’s motion for judicial notice as moot

Biodiversity Legal Found. v. Badgley, 309 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2002) (mootness is a jurisdictional prerequisite for appellate review)
Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (appellate courts must ensure cases are not moot)
Demery v. Arpaio, 378 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts have independent duty to consider mootness sua sponte)
Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 1999) (same: sua sponte examination of mootness)
Foster v. Carson, 347 F.3d 742 (9th Cir. 2003) (if actions are completed and cannot be undone, appeal is moot)
Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862 (9th Cir. 2002) (appellate relief requires ability to undo the challenged action)
EEOC v. Fed. Express Corp., 558 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2009) (test for mootness: whether the court can grant effective relief)
In re Burrell, 415 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussion of effective relief standard for mootness)
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Lohn, 511 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2007) (declaring an order unlawful is pointless when it would not change the party’s duties)
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1994) (issues not specifically and distinctly raised in opening brief are waived)