Mootness can end a good lawsuit

Mootness can kill off a good lawsuit. That's what happened here. The plaintiff sued medical professionals after they blocked his readmission into a facility for the mentally ill. The John Doe plaintiff may have had a good case, but something happened on the way to the courthouse. The facility decided to readmit plaintiff to the facility. What happens now?

The case is Doe v. McDonald, issued on February 12. The court ruling says that Plaintiff is mentally ill. He was being treated at a transitional adult home. After the facility discharged him, he brought this lawsuit under the federal anti-discrimination laws. But then the facility readmitted him by determining not to enforce certain regulations against the plaintiff. And defendants then argued that this readmission renders the lawsuit moot because there is no longer anything worth suing over. The Northern District of New York denied the state's motion to dismiss on standing grounds, which brings the case to the Second Circuit.

Years ago, up until the 1990s, a government defendant was not able to have the case dismissed by mooting out the factual issues. The courts assumed that, post-lawsuit, the defendants might again violate the law and the plaintiff would be out of luck. But the Supreme Court, and then the Second Circuit, said that the case can be mooted out if there is no reason to believe the defendants will revert to their prior illegal behavior. One way for the government to take advantage of this was in lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. In that circumstance, the Court of Appeals assumes that a legislative enactment will not be revoked willy-nilly after the fact. The leading case for this principle is Lamar Advertising v. Town of Orchard, 356 F.3d 365 (2d Cir. 2004). On the other hand, if the court thinks the defendants tried the moot the case under "suspicious circumstances," the case is not moot. The case for that rule is Mhany Mgt v. County of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 2016).

In this case, the Court of Appeals (Walker, Jacobs and Merriam) finds this case does not involve standing but mootness. There is a difference. Plaintiff had standing to bring the case because, when he filed it, he was aggrieved. Mootness asks whether the case is still viable after the case was filed. 

The Second Circuit holds "there is no reasonable expectation that the alleged violation -- Doe's being denied readmission to Oceanview because of the Regulations -- will recur." There is no evidence to suggest the state will change its mind with regard to plaintiff, and the fact that the state decided to readmit him to the facility because of a separate ADA lawsuit is no basis to think otherwise. In short, "because Doe lacks any continuing personal stake in the outcome of this case, it is moot,"