State of Utah v. Ricks
695 F. App'x 406
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Ricks, criminally prosecuted in Utah state court, served a subpoena on the Social Security Administration (SSA) seeking disability records of his alleged victim.
- The SSA refused, citing federal regulations that prohibit releasing the requested information, and removed Ricks’s motion to compel to federal district court.
- The district court dismissed, concluding the SSA could not be compelled to produce the records; Ricks appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
- While the appeal was pending, Ricks voluntarily pleaded guilty in the state criminal case, thereby concluding the underlying proceedings that motivated the subpoena.
- The SSA moved to dismiss the appeal as moot; Ricks conceded mootness but urged a narrow exception to protect his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial and compulsory-process interests and opposed dismissal/vacatur.
- The Tenth Circuit considered mootness de novo, found no applicable exception, declined to vacate the district court’s judgment, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ricks) | Defendant's Argument (SSA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ricks’s appeal is moot after his voluntary guilty plea | The appeal remains reviewable because the subpoena litigation caused substantial delay in his criminal case and he seeks protection of Sixth Amendment rights (asked for a narrow exception to mootness) | The guilty plea ended the underlying controversy; the appeal is moot and no exception applies | Appeal is moot; no exception (wrong capable of repetition or voluntary cessation) applies; appeal dismissed |
| Whether vacatur of the district court judgment is warranted | Sought relief from delay and arguably vacatur to remedy harm caused by subpoena litigation | Mootness caused by Ricks’s voluntary plea weighs against vacatur; equitable factors do not favor vacatur | Court declines to vacate the district court’s judgment; vacatur not warranted where losing party caused mootness |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Fisher, 805 F.3d 982 (10th Cir. 2015) (mootness reviewed de novo)
- DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974) (federal courts lack power to decide moot controversies)
- Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2016) (exceptions to mootness can preserve jurisdiction in certain circumstances)
- FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007) (wrong capable of repetition yet evading review standard)
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (2013) (voluntary cessation doctrine for mootness)
- Schell v. OXY USA Inc., 814 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir.) (equitable considerations guide vacatur decisions)