The district court's opinion that found the request for an injunction and declaratory relief to be moot also dismissed the damage claim on the merits. Here is the court's language:
"This Court agrees with plaintiffs' assessment. Accordingly, this Court finds plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief are now moot. This Court notes that it previously dismissed plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's damages claims against all defendants in their official capacities on Eleventh Amendment immunity grounds and against the individual defendants in their personal capacities on qualified immunity grounds.... That ruling was not disturbed by the Ninth Circuit.... Although plaintiffs "respectfully disagree" with this Court's qualified immunity ruling, plaintiffs indicate the inclusion of plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's damages claims in the second amended complaint was done to avoid waiving the claims on appeal.... This Court reaffirms its prior dismissal of plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's damages claims. Accordingly, because plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's damages claims have been dismissed and his injunctive and declaratory relief claims are moot, all of plaintiff Tyler Chase Harper's claims are no longer viable. Therefore, Tyler Chase Harper is DISMISSED as a plaintiff in this case." Here is a link to the district court's opinion: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/images/070124tshirt.pdf Howard Friedman ________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 4:03 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: Complex SCOTUS Move Gets Rid of Anti-Gay T-shirt Case In a message dated 3/5/07 3:38:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm confused by this ruling. The Supreme Court's order only instructs the court of appeals "to dismiss the appeal as moot." (Emphasis added.) The appeal was apparently only from the district court's denial of petitioner's (plaintiff's) motion for a preliminary injunction. The request for an injunction is moot because the plaintiff graduated. But Prof. Friedman's blog says that the compliant also sought damages; that claim could not be rendered moot by the plaintiff's graduation and presumably remains pending in the district court, where it will still require a decision on the merits, unless the case settles. What confuses me, though, is that the Supreme Court's order states that "The district court, however, has now entered final judgment dismissing petitioner's claims for injunctive relief as moot." Ordinarily, a district court could not enter a "final judgment" unless it dispopsed of all claims against all parties. I wonder if the district court here entered a partial final judgment under the special procedure of Rule 54(b), or if someone (the district judge, the Supreme Court, Prof. Friedman, me) is just confused? Art Spitzer Washington DC ************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
