Holder v. Shelton ( 2015 )

 as moot. Holder timely responded, asking this court to decide the appeal,
and Shelton has submitted a pro se reply.'
Having considered Holder's response and Shelton's reply, we
conclude that this appeal is moot. This court has a duty "to decide actual
controversies by a judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to
give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare
principles of law which cannot affect the matter in issue before it." Univ.
& Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev. v. Nevadans for Sound Gov't, 120 Nev. 712, 720,
100 P.3d 179, 186 (2004) (quotation marks omitted); see Boulet v. City of
Las Vegas, 96 Nev. 611, 613, 614 P.2d 8, 9 (1980) (explaining that this
court decides appeals only when doing so affects the legal rights of the
parties). As noted in the order to show cause, whether Holder resided in
the district for the requisite period for purposes of determining his
eligibility to apply for and hold office is no longer relevant, as he did not
win the election and there is no allegation that Shelton is ineligible to hold
the office. Further, Holder's opening brief indicates that he no longer
resides at the address listed on his declaration of candidacy, which was
that of a friend. As a result, this particular residency issue is moot, and
any future residency issue would involve different facts. See, e.g., Bell v.
Eagerton, 908 So. 2d 204 (Ala. 2002) (recognizing that a disqualified
candidate's appeal was rendered moot by an election).
Nevertheless, Holder argues that the appeal should not be
dismissed because the district court's judgment damages his reputation
'The clerk of this court shall file Shelton's October 14, 2015, reply.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
`
and impacts his future political aspirations. 2 Holder states that he plans
to run for office again next year, and thus he will be "severely prejudiced"
if the judgment is allowed to stand. Some courts have found an otherwise
moot appeal justiciable under the collateral consequences doctrine, which
provides that an appeal is not moot when consequences, sufficiently
concrete, are likely to arise from the adverse judgment. In re Giles, 657
P.2d 285, 286 (Utah 1982); see Knight v. State, 116 Nev. 140, 143-44, 993
P.2d 67, 70 (2000) (concluding that the satisfaction of a fine or completion
of a sentence typically does not render moot an appeal from a criminal
conviction due to the consequences flowing from the conviction). This
court has not expressly adopted the doctrine for civil cases, but see Boulet,
96 Nev. at 613-14, 614 P.2d at 10 ("A civil case will not be considered moot
if an aggrieved party diligently and actively seeks relief from discernible
and substantial consequences flowing from a lower tribunal's judgment."),
and here, Holder has not alleged a discernable and substantial legal
consequence sufficient to overcome the mootness doctrine. See id. at 613,
614 P.2d at 9 (explaining that this court decides appeals only when doing
so affects the legal rights of the parties); Towner v. Ridgway, 272 P.3d 765,
769 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (dismissing an appeal from a civil stalking
injunction as moot after noting that alleged harm to reputation, family
2 Holder also argues that the issue is one capable of repetition, yet
evading review. While it is true that the duration of election matters,
including this one, is typically short, this matter presents facts unique to
Holder and thus of little statewide importance; consequently, the
exception is inapplicable. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599,
602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (explaining that the court may consider an
otherwise moot issue when a matter of widespread importance is capable
of repetition, yet evading review).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 4618).
relationships, and employment prospects are not collateral consequences
"imposed by law" giving rise to a controversy (quotation marks omitted)).
Accordingly, this appeal is moot, and we
ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.
j.
Parraguirre
Douglas )19
cc: Hon. Michael ViRani, District Judge
Canon Law Services, LLC
Shelly M. Shelton
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A