Eric Clark v. Darryl Forte ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                  United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 21-3208
    ___________________________
    Eric S. Clark
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant
    v.
    Darryl Forte, in his official capacity as Jackson County Sheriff; Bridgette Shaffer,
    in her official capacity as Jackson County Health Director
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendants - Appellees
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City
    ____________
    Submitted: February 17, 2022
    Filed: March 3, 2022
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before BENTON, KELLY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Kansas resident Eric Clark appeals following the district court’s dismissal of
    his removed 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action. In this case, Clark challenged a public health
    order issued by Jackson County, Missouri officials requiring individuals to wear face
    coverings in certain public outdoor spaces. Clark sought injunctive and declaratory
    relief. The district court concluded that the case was moot because the order had been
    amended and no longer included the outdoor masking requirements of which Clark
    complained.
    We agree with the district court that the case is moot, given that Clark is no
    longer subject to the challenged requirements, and there is no reasonable expectation
    that he will be subject to the same requirements again. See Prowse v. Payne, 
    984 F.3d 700
    , 702 (8th Cir. 2021) (discussing mootness doctrine); Hawse v. Page, 
    7 F.4th 685
    , 692 (8th Cir. 2021) (challenge to public health order limiting size of gatherings
    was moot where challenged order was superseded and there was no reasonable
    expectation that county would reinstate challenged restriction). Further, Clark lacks
    standing to raise his challenge to a Missouri statute authorizing public health orders
    because he has not shown he is experiencing an ongoing injury, or an immediate
    threat of injury related to the statute. See Webb v. Smith, 
    936 F.3d 808
    , 814-15 (8th
    Cir. 2019) (discussing requirements for standing to obtain prospective relief). Thus,
    as the district court recognized, it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case.
    See Sisney v. Kaemingk, 
    15 F.4th 1181
    , 1194 (8th Cir. 2021) (standing and mootness
    are jurisdictional issues).
    Because this case was removed from state court, however, the proper
    disposition is to remand it to state court, rather than to dismiss it. See Dalton v. JJSC
    Props., LLC, 
    967 F.3d 909
    , 914 (8th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (if subject-matter
    jurisdiction is lacking in removed case, federal court must remand it to state court).
    Accordingly, we vacate the judgment dismissing the case and instruct the district
    court to remand the case to state court.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-3208

Filed Date: 3/3/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2022