Marie v. Moser , 663 F. App'x 595 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    United States Court of Appeals
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                  Tenth Circuit
    FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                September 28, 2016
    _________________________________
    Elisabeth A. Shumaker
    Clerk of Court
    KAIL MARIE; MICHELLE L. BROWN;
    KERRY WILKS, Ph. D.; DONNA
    DITRANI,
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,
    v.                                                          No. 14-3250
    (D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02518-DDC-TJJ)
    ROBERT MOSER, M.D., in his official                          (D. Kan.)
    capacity as Secretary of the Kansas
    Department of Health and Environment;
    DOUGLAS A. HAMILTON, in his official
    capacity as Clerk of the District Court for
    the 7th Judicial District (Douglas County);
    BERNIE LUMBRERAS, in her official
    capacity as Clerk of the District Court for
    the 18th Judicial District (Sedgwick
    County),
    Defendants.
    ------------------------------
    PHILIP W. UNRUH; SANDRA L.
    UNRUH,
    Movants - Appellants.
    –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    KAIL MARIE; MICHELLE L. BROWN;
    KERRY WILKS, Ph. D.; DONNA
    DITRANI,
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,
    v.                                                            No. 14-3251
    (D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02518-DDC-TJJ)
    ROBERT MOSER, M.D., in his official                            (D. Kan.)
    capacity as Secretary of the Kansas
    Department of Health and Environment;
    DOUGLAS A. HAMILTON, in his official
    capacity as Clerk of the District Court for
    the 7th Judicial District (Douglas County);
    BERNIE LUMBRERAS, in her official
    capacity as Clerk of the District Court for
    the 18th Judicial District (Sedgwick
    County),
    Defendants.
    ------------------------------
    WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.,
    Intervenor - Appellant.
    –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    KAIL MARIE; MICHELLE L. BROWN;
    KERRY WILKS, Ph. D.; DONNA
    DITRANI; JAMES E. PETERS; GARY A.
    MOHRMAN; CARRIE L. FOWLER;
    SARAH C. BRAUN; DARCI
    BOHNENBLUST; JOLEEN M.
    HICKMAN,
    Plaintiffs - Appellees,
    v.                                                            No. 14-3276
    (D.C. No. 2:14-CV-02518-DDC-TJJ)
    ROBERT MOSER, M.D., in his official                            (D. Kan.)
    capacity as Secretary of the Kansas
    Department of Health and Environment;
    DOUGLAS A. HAMILTON, in his official
    capacity as Clerk of the District Court for
    the 7th Judicial District (Douglas County);
    BERNIE LUMBRERAS, in her official
    capacity as Clerk of the District Court for
    2
    the 18th Judicial District (Sedgwick
    County); NICK JORDAN, in his official
    capacity as Secretary, Kansas Department
    of Revenue; LISA KASPER, in her official
    capacity as Director, Kansas Department of
    Revenue, Division of Vehicles; MIKE
    MICHAEL, in his official capacity as
    Director, Kansas State Employee Health
    Plan,
    Defendants.
    ------------------------------
    WESTBORO BAPTIST CHURCH, INC.,
    Intervenor - Appellant.
    _________________________________
    ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
    _________________________________
    Before HARTZ, PHILLIPS, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.
    _________________________________
    Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) appeals the district court’s order denying its
    motion to intervene as a defendant in Marie v. Moser, No. 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ
    (D. Kan.), a declaratory judgment action filed in the District of Kansas challenging
    Kansas’s ban on same-sex marriage (No. 14-3251). WBC also appeals the district
    court’s order denying its renewed motion to intervene (No. 14-3276). And Phillip W.
    *
    After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
    unanimously to honor the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
    argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
    submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent,
    except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It
    may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
    and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
    3
    Unruh and Sandra L. Unruh appeal the district court’s denial of their motion to
    intervene in the same action (No. 14-3250).
    The district court in Marie has now entered final judgment, granting a
    permanent injunction in favor of plaintiffs in light of Obergefell v. Hodges,
    ___ U.S. ___, 
    135 S. Ct. 2584
    (2015) (holding that state bans on same-sex marriage
    are unconstitutional). Marie, No. 2:14-cv-02518-DDC-TJJ, Amended Judgment at 2
    (D. Kan. July 26, 2016). The injunction forbids the Kansas defendants and their
    successors from enforcing or applying any aspect of Kansas law that treats same-sex
    married couples differently than opposite-sex married couples. After entry of this
    final judgment, we ordered WBC and the Unruhs to show cause why their appeals
    should not be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds as moot. The Unruhs did not
    respond.
    Federal court jurisdiction is limited to the adjudication of live cases and
    controversies. Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 
    600 F.3d 1301
    , 1311 (10th Cir. 2010).
    An appeal is moot if there exists no present controversy as to which effective relief
    can be granted. 
    Id. (“When it
    becomes impossible for a court to grant effective
    relief, a live controversy ceases to exist, and the case becomes moot.” (citation and
    quotation marks omitted)).
    We have reviewed WBC’s response and conclude its appeals are moot because
    there is no longer any pending litigation in the district court in which it can intervene.
    W. Coast Seafood Processors Ass’n v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 
    643 F.3d 701
    , 704
    (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissing would-be intervenor’s appeal as moot after final
    4
    judgment was entered in the underlying case and the litigants did not appeal because
    the court “cannot grant [the appellant] any effective relief . . . [s]ince there is no
    longer any action in which appellants can intervene.” (internal quotation marks
    omitted)).
    The appeals by WBC and the Unruhs are dismissed as moot.
    Entered for the Court
    Gregory A. Phillips
    Circuit Judge
    5
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-3250

Citation Numbers: 663 F. App'x 595

Filed Date: 9/28/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023