Stinnie v. HolcombStinnie v. Holcomb
Before the Court is Defendant Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles Commissioner Richard D. Holcomb‘s (the “Commissioner”) motion to dismiss the case as moot or, in the alternative, to stay the case. (Dkt. 142). The underlying matter is the constitutionality of
The Commissioner filed the present motion due to the enactment of Budget Amendment No. 33 (the “Budget Amendment”), which eliminates the suspension of drivers’ licenses for failure to pay court fines and costs through July 1, 2020, but does not repeal
I. Background
A full recitation of the facts surrounding this case can be found in the Court’s memorandum opinion granting Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction. Stinnie v. Holcomb, 355 F.Supp.3d 514, 520–23 (W.D. Va. 2018). Relevant here is the case’s procedural history and the text and impact of the Budget Amendment.1 This case was first filed in July 2016 and dismissed without prejudice. (Dkt. 57). The Fourth Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs’ appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Stinnie v. Holcomb, 734 F. App‘x 858, 863 (4th Cir. 2018). The Fourth Circuit explained that this Court’s “grounds for dismissal [did] not clearly indicate that no amendment in the complaint could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.” Id. at 861 (internal quotations omitted). Accordingly, on remand, in September 2018, Plaintiffs2 submitted an
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to: (1) enjoin the Commissioner from enforcing
under
As to the Budget Amendment, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam proposed the Budget Amendment to “eliminate the suspension of driving privileges for nonpayment of court fines and costs.”3 In full, the Budget Amendment states:
[N]otwithstanding the provisions of
§ 46.2-395 of the Code of Virginia, no court shall suspend any person’s privilege to drive a motor vehicle solely for failure to pay any fines, court costs, forfeitures, restitution, or penalties assessed against such person. The Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles shall reinstate a person’s privilege to drive a motor vehicle that was suspended prior to July 1, 2019, solely pursuant to§ 46.2-395 of the Code of Virginia and shall waive all fees relating to reinstating such person’s driving privileges. Nothing herein shall require the Commissioner to reinstate a person’s driving privileges if such privileges have been otherwise lawfully suspended or revoked or if such person is otherwise ineligible for a driver’s license.
Accompanying the text of the Budget Amendment is an explanation, which provides:
This amendment eliminates the driver’s license reinstatement fee transfer to the Trauma Fund and eliminates the loss of driving privileges to individuals who have only failed to pay fines, court costs, forfeitures, restitution or penalties assessed
against them. The Department of Motor Vehicles also shall not charge a driver’s license reinstatement fee to these individuals. This initiative will help individuals that require a vehicle to gain a job, allowing them to earn money to repay any obligations they owe. This amendment has no impact to the general fund since the impact of its passage was assumed in the introduced and enrolled budgets.
The Commissioner provided the Court with a sworn declaration stating that “[p]ursuant to Budget Amendment 33, the DMV database will reflect that
As the Commissioner notes, the General Assembly’s support of both the Budget Amendment—which passed by votes of 70 to 29 in the House and 30 to 8 in the Senate—indicates political hostility towards
II. Legal Standards
“Under Article III of the Constitution, federal courts may adjudicate only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990) (internal citations omitted). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). “A case is moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” City of Erie v. Pap’s A.M., 529 U.S. 277, 287 (2000). “A case is not moot . . . if a party can demonstrate that the apparent absence of a live dispute is merely a temporary abeyance of harm that is capable of repetition, yet evading review.” Brooks v. Vassar, 462 F.3d 341, 348 (4th Cir. 2006).
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In determining whether a stay is appropriate a court should “balance the various factors relevant to the expeditious and comprehensive disposition of the causes of action on the court’s docket.” Md. v. Universal Elections, Inc., 729 F.3d 370, 375 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotations omitted). These factors include “the interests of judicial economy, the hardship and inequity to the moving party in the absence of a stay, and the potential prejudice to the non-moving party in the event of a stay.” Crowell v. N.C., No. 1:17-cv-514, 2018 WL 6031190, at *4 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 16, 2018).
A. The Commissioner’s Motion to Dismiss the Case as Moot
The Commissioner first argues that the Budget Amendment renders this case constitutionally moot. For a case to be constitutionally moot, the challenged conduct must cease “such that there is no reasonable expectation that the wrong will be repeated.” City of Erie, 529
U.S. at 287. Where a lawsuit concerns the constitutionality of a statute, the amendment or repeal of a statute can moot a case “even where re-enactment of the statue at issue is within the power of the legislature.” Brooks, 462 F.3d at 348. The Fourth Circuit has found cases moot when “there was no reasonable expectation” that a statute would be reenacted. See, e.g., Reyes v. City of Lynchburg, 300 F.3d 449, 453 (4th Cir. 2002). However, a case is not moot where “there is a reasonable expectation that the complaining party will be subjected to the same action again.” Mellen v. Bunting, 327 F.3d 355, 364 (4th Cir. 2003) (citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 17 (1998)). Here, although the Budget Amendment has temporarily halted its enforcement,
The Commissioner next contends that, even if the Court finds that the case is not moot in the constitutional sense, the case is “prudentially moot,” and the Court should use its “‘discretionary power to withhold injunctive and declaratory relief for prudential reasons.’” (Dkt. 143 at 10 (quoting S-1 v. Spangler, 832 F.2d 294, 297 (4th Cir. 1987))). A case is prudentially moot, and a Court cannot offer relief, where there is “only hypothetical and speculative harm.” Catawba Riverkeeper Found. v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp., 843 F.3d 583, 589 (4th Cir. 2016). However, a case is not moot where there is a “continuing and brooding presence” over the plaintiff. Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395 (1975). The Fourth Circuit found, in Catawba Riverkeeper Found., 843 F.3d at 589, that there was only a “remote possibility” that
the harm to the plaintiff could occur where it was prevented by “multiple barriers.” Here, the only barrier to Plaintiffs’ harm is the Budget Amendment and the hypothetical actions of the Virginia General Assembly in 2020. The Court cannot base a finding of prudential mootness on the “hypothetical and speculative” facts the Commissioner offers. Id. Furthermore, as discussed above with respect to constitutional mootness, the Budget Amendment is only a temporary cessation of the allegedly unconstitutional conduct at issue in this case, and there is a real prospect of continued enforcement of the statute.
B. The Commissioner’s Motion to Stay
The Commissioner argues that, if the Court declines to dismiss the case, it “should, at a minimum, exercise its discretionary authority to stay proceedings pending the outcome of Virginia’s next legislative session.” (Dkt. 143 at 13). The Commissioner contends that a stay will prevent “the parties and the Court from wasting considerable time and resources,” “avoid a quagmire of class certification issues,” and prevent hardship to the parties.
1. Judicial Economy
In considering judicial economy, the Court considers principles of constitutional avoidance and judicial restraint, as well as the practical considerations presented by the docket. The Court is mindful of principles counseling discretion in its exercise of authority. First, “the principle of constitutional avoidance set forth in Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Authority requires the federal courts to strive to avoid rendering constitutional rulings unless absolutely necessary.” Norfolk S. Ry Co. v. City of Alexandria, 608 F.3d 150, 156 (4th Cir. 2010) (citing Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (“It is not the habit of the
Court to decide questions of a Constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case.”)). Further supporting judicial restraint is the “prudential limits on [federal courts’] jurisdiction ‘founded in concern about the proper—and properly limited—role of the courts in a democratic society.’” Doe v. Va. Dept. of St. Police, 713 F.3d 745, 753 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975)).
These principles are particularly relevant to this Court’s determination regarding a stay in light of pending legislative action. Were this litigation to proceed, the Court would weigh in on sensitive constitutional questions about license suspension schemes about which other courts have disagreed,4 as well as important case-specific issues such as class certification that are arguably complicated to a significant degree by the Budget Amendment and that could be resolved by the Virginia legislature. The Court’s resolution of such issues would be rendered moot if the Virginia General Assembly repeals
2. Burden on the Commissioner and Harm to Plaintiffs
This litigation has been long, contentious, and no doubt costly. The Commissioner argues that the burden of litigation, including continued pre-trial motions practice as well as a trial, is too great considering the realistic possibility that his efforts will be rendered moot after the 2020 session of the Virginia General Assembly. Plaintiffs counter that their risk of harm
outweighs any burden on the Commissioner. The Court acknowledges the financial burden of litigation, and concludes for the following reasons that a stay will not harm Plaintiffs.
The Commissioner has provided the Court with a sworn declaration stating that, pursuant to the Budget Amendment, “the DMV database will reflect that
Having concluded that all relevant factors counsel in favor of a stay, the Court will stay this matter and all other pending motions in accordance with the accompanying order.
IV. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that this case is not moot, and will deny the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss the case as moot. However, because the relevant factors weigh in favor of a stay, the Commissioner’s motion to stay the case will be granted. An
accompanying order will issue, establishing the temporal parameters of the stay and directing the parties to file status updates at specified junctures.
The Clerk of the Court is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this memorandum opinion and the accompanying order to all counsel of record.
Entered this 28th day of June, 2019.
NORMAN K. MOON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE