Melissa Ahlman v. Don Barnes, 20 F.4th 489

Background:

Inmates in Orange County jails sued the County and sheriff under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging unconstitutional failures to control COVID-19 in the jails.
The district court provisionally certified a class and issued a PLRA preliminary injunction requiring six-foot spacing, hygiene supplies, daily showers and clean laundry, staff PPE and hand hygiene, daily temperature checks and symptom screening, testing of symptomatic individuals, prompt medical response, waived COVID-related co-pays, and nonpunitive quarantine with continued access to services.
The district court denied a stay; the Ninth Circuit initially denied a stay in a 2-1 decision, remanded for consideration of changed circumstances, and one judge dissented saying the injunction exceeded CDC guidance and the County likely would succeed on the merits.
On remand the district court kept the injunction and ordered expedited discovery; the Supreme Court then granted the County an emergency stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal.
Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal as moot, arguing the PLRA requires preliminary injunctions to expire automatically after 90 days absent finalization; the County argued the Supreme Court stay kept the injunction "in place" and that the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review.
The Ninth Circuit held § 3626(a)(2) of the PLRA unambiguously causes preliminary injunctions to expire after 90 days unless the district court makes the requisite findings and makes the order final; the Supreme Court stay did not toll this statutory limit, so the injunction expired, the appeal was moot, and the provisional class certification (tied to the injunction) was vacated.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal is moot because the PLRA causes preliminary injunctions to expire after 90 days	The PLRA 90-day rule expired the injunction and thus the appeal is moot	The Supreme Court stay kept the injunction "in place," preventing expiration	The PLRA text is unambiguous; injunction expired after 90 days; appeal is moot
Whether a Supreme Court stay tolls or suspends the PLRA 90-day expiration	N/A (Plaintiffs relied on statutory expiration)	Stay preserves the injunction beyond 90 days by holding it in abeyance	A stay does not override the PLRA; equitable power is displaced by the statute; stay did not toll the 90-day limit
Whether the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception saves the appeal from mootness	N/A; Plaintiffs argued mootness applies	The issue commonly evades review because PLRA injunctions are short-lived and may recur	First prong (short duration) likely true, but second prong (reasonable expectation of recurrence against same party) not met here; exception inapplicable
Effect on provisional class certification tied to the injunction	Class certification needed to pursue the injunction	Class should remain certified	Provisional certification vacated because it depended on an injunction that has expired

Key Cases Cited

Connell v. Lima Corp., 988 F.3d 1089 (statutory interpretation: plain meaning governs)
Norbert v. City & County of San Francisco, 10 F.4th 918 (expiration of injunction generally moots appeal)
Ga. Advoc. Off. v. Jackson, 4 F.4th 1200 (PLRA preliminary injunctions expire after 90 days)
Banks v. Booth, 3 F.4th 445 (PLRA 90-day expiration causes mootness of appeals)
Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (Congress may displace courts' equitable powers under the PLRA)
Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (stay does not make time stand still)
Fraihat v. U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf't, 16 F.4th 613 (class certification tied to an infirm injunction must fail)