F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PU BL ISH
July 26, 2007
UNITED STATES COURT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
KA TIE LAN E and SARA H R ICE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants/Cross-
Appellees,
v.
TOD D F. SIM ON and STEPHEN E.
W HITE, in their official and
individual capacities,
Defendants - Appellees/Cross-
Appellants,
--------------------
STUDENT PRESS LAW CENTER; Nos. 05-3266 & 05-3284
TH E A M ER IC AN SO CIETY O F
N EW SPA PER ED ITO RS; TH E
ASSOCIATED CO LLEGIATE
PRESS; COLLEGE M EDIA
A D V ISER S; C OLLEG E
N EW SPA PER BU SIN ESS A N D
A D V ERTISIN G MA N A G ER S; THE
C OM M UN ITY CO LLEG E
JO U RN A LISM A SSO CIA TIO N; THE
FO U N D ATIO N S FO R IN D IV IDUAL
R IG H TS IN ED U CA TIO N , IN C.; THE
R EPO RTER S C OM M ITTEE FOR
FR EED OM O F TH E PR ESS; and THE
SO CIETY O F PR OFESSIO N A L
JOURN ALISTS,
Amici Curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of K ansas
(D .C . No. 04-CV-4079-JAR)
Patrick J. Doran, Patrick J. Doran, L.C., Kansas City, M issouri for the Plaintiffs -
Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Cheryl G. Strecker, Senior Associate University Attorney, Kansas State
University, M anhattan, Kansas for the D efendants - Appellees/Cross-Appellants.
S. M ark Goodman, Student Press Law Center, Arlington, Virginia, and Adam J.
Biegel, Alston & Bird, LLP, Atlanta, G eorgia, filed an Amici Curiae brief in
support of Plaintiffs - Appellants/Cross-Appellees.
Before L UC ER O, M cCO NNELL, and HO LM ES, Circuit Judges.
L UC ER O, Circuit Judge.
Katie Lane and Sarah Rice are former editors of the Kansas State Collegian
(“C ollegian”), a daily new spaper affiliated with Kansas State University (“KSU ”
or “University”). After KSU officials Todd Simon and Stephen White took
actions leading to the removal of the Collegian’s advisor, Ronald Johnson,
plaintiffs filed suit alleging violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment
rights as w ell as state law. The district court granted defendants’ motion to
dism iss under Fed. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6). Lane and Rice now appeal. Because we
conclude this case is now moot, we VAC ATE the decision of the district court
-2-
and R EM A N D with instructions to DISM ISS.
I
Since its establishment by KSU students in 1896, the Collegian has
provided general news coverage in and around M anhattan, Kansas, including the
KSU campus. KSU students comprise the staff of the Collegian, and Student
Publications, Inc. (“SPI”) publishes the paper. Although the board of directors
and officers of SPI are in large part affiliated w ith K SU, SPI is incorporated as a
Kansas not-for-profit corporation that is legally distinct from the University.
In Spring of 2004, Lane served as Editor-in-Chief of the Collegian and Rice
as its M anaging Editor. Johnson, a KSU professor in the A.Q. M iller School of
Journalism and M ass Communications, was the Treasurer and Director of SPI
from 1989 until 2004. In his capacity as Director, Johnson advised the student
editors of the Collegian but did not make final content decisions for the paper.
Under Johnson’s advisorship, the Collegian won a number of national awards,
including Associated Collegiate Press Pacemaker Awards in 1997-98, 1999-2000,
and 2000-01. In 2003 and 2004, it won top national prizes from the Columbia
Scholastic Press Association and placed first in show at the Spring National
College M edia Convention.
During Lane and Rice’s tenure as editors, campus controversy erupted over
the extent of minority news coverage in the Collegian. After the Collegian failed
to send a reporter to the Big XII Conference on Black Student Government, held
-3-
in M anhattan, Kansas that year, student groups and faculty openly criticized the
Collegian’s alleged dearth of diversity coverage. Lane and Rice addressed these
concerns in two public forums for K SU students, faculty, and administrators.
Their responses, however, failed to quell campus criticism, and at the second
forum, a KSU associate provost suggested that Johnson no longer serve as
Director of SPI. In early April 2004, shortly after the forums, KSU student
groups organized a protest rally and march calling for Johnson’s removal.
On M ay 7, 2004, Todd Simon, Chairman of the Board of SPI and Director
of the School of Journalism and M ass Communications at KSU, wrote a letter to
Stephen White, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at KSU , recommending
that Johnson not be reappointed as Director of SPI. 1 In his letter, Simon
explicitly stated that he did not base his recommendation on the recent
controversy over minority news coverage. Instead, he relied largely on a “content
analysis” comparing the Collegian to six other college newspapers. After
reviewing the results of the content analysis, Simon concluded that the
“Collegian’s new s reporting and writing are demonstrably weaker than news
coverage in peer college newspapers.” According to the analysis, the Collegian
had fewer hard news stories, diversity stories, and sports news stories than the
other college papers analyzed. The analysis also showed that the Collegian cited
1
Johnson worked under a series of one-year contracts and was subject to
annual reappointment.
-4-
few er sources per article. B ecause the “sub par scope and quality of news
coverage” extended back to 2000, Simon concluded that Johnson’s advising,
rather than the composition of the student staff, was to blame.
Following Simon’s recommendation, W hite informed Johnson by letter that
he was being removed from his position as Director of SPI, effective M ay 2004,
and being assigned additional teaching duties. His salary would remain the same.
Neither Simon nor W hite consulted SPI’s Board about whether to reappoint
Johnson. The bylaw s of SPI, however, provide that: “In the case of split
appointments between Student Publications and the A.Q. M iller School of
Journalism and M ass Communications, the Board of Student Publications will be
appropriately represented in all stages of the search and evaluation process.”
Accordingly, on M ay 20, 2004, the Board of SPI passed a resolution stating
that it did “not approve of or consent to . . . attempts by persons or entities other
than the Board to remove its Director of Student Publications by means other than
by a majority vote of a quorum of the Board.” It further resolved that “if the
Board chose to vote on the office of Treasurer and Director of Student
Publications at a regularly scheduled or special meeting of the Board, a majority
of a quorum of the Board would vote to retain Ron Johnson in the office of
Treasurer and Director of Student Publications.” Notwithstanding this resolution,
Simon and W hite proceeded to remove Johnson from his post at SPI and initiated
a search for an interim director.
-5-
On July 6, 2004, Lane and Johnson filed a § 1983 action against Simon and
W hite in federal district court. Rice joined as a plaintiff on July 14, 2004. In
addition to seeking a declaratory judgment that defendants’ actions violated the
First and Fourteenth Amendments and Kansas state law, plaintiffs requested an
order enjoining defendants from removing Johnson or otherwise interfering with
the governance of SPI.
W ith respect to their constitutional claim, plaintiffs allege that Johnson’s
removal was motivated by the controversy surrounding minority news coverage
and chilled student editors’ exercise of their First Amendment rights. They
contend that defendants’ reliance on the “content analysis” in reassigning Johnson
amounted to an attempt to exercise control over the Collegian’s content. Citing
the national awards won by the Collegian, they also dispute conclusions reached
by the analysis. W ith respect to their state law claims, plaintiffs seek a
declaratory judgment that SPI has the right and power under state law to retain
officers of its choosing, even if such action is contrary to the wishes of KSU
faculty and administrators.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which the district
court granted after reviewing the complaint and the documents attached thereto,
including Simon’s content analysis. The court held that Johnson lacked standing
and failed to allege a violation of a federal right, reasoning that Johnson’s right to
freedom of the press was not affected by his removal because he exercised no
-6-
control over the content of the Collegian. It also determined that, although Lane
and Rice had standing to file suit, their constitutional claims failed because
defendants based their decision on the quality of the Collegian rather than its
content. The court further held that the Eleventh Amendment protected
defendants from suit. Declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state law claims, the court dismissed the action in its entirety.
Lane and Rice appeal the dismissal of their claims. Johnson did not file a
notice of appeal and is not a party to the action before this court. Both Lane and
Rice have since graduated from KSU and no longer serve on the Collegian.
II
W e review the district court’s grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion de novo,
accepting all well-pleaded allegations as true and viewing them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff. Johnson v. Johnson, 466 F.3d 1213, 1214 (10th Cir.
2006). “[W ]e must determine whether the complaint sufficiently alleges facts
supporting all the elements necessary to establish an entitlement to relief under
the legal theory proposed.” Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149, 1160
(10th Cir. 2007). Although the plaintiff must provide “more than labels and
conclusions, [or] a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1965 (2007) (citation omitted),
“[s]pecific facts are not necessary; the statement need only give the defendant fair
-7-
notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Erickson v.
Padrus, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (quotations and citations omitted) (omission in
original).
Before reaching the merits of this case, however, we must address our
jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims. In particular, we must determine whether
Lane and Rice’s respective graduations from KSU have rendered their claims
moot. “M ootness is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or
controversy is a constitutional prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction.”
M cClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 867 (10th Cir. 1996) (citation
omitted); see U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Because “[a] federal court has no
power to give opinions upon moot questions or declare principles of law which
cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it,” a controversy must exist
during all stages of appellate review. S. Utah W ilderness Alliance v. Smith, 110
F.3d 724, 727 (10th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted). “Once such controversy ceases
to exist, the action is moot and this court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the
matter.” United States v. Seminole Nation of O kla., 321 F.3d 939, 943 (10th Cir.
2002) (citation omitted).
W e have previously held that “when an individual graduates from school
there no longer exists a live controversy necessary to support an action to
participate in interscholastic activity.” Bauchman ex rel. Bauchman v. W est High
Sch., 132 F.3d 542, 548 (10th Cir. 1997). In Bauchman, a student challenged her
-8-
choir instructor’s alleged advocacy of M ormonism during classes and choir
performances. W hile the case was pending upon appeal, Bauchman graduated
from high school. Id. at 546. After determining that the defendant school
officials “no longer ha[d] the pow er or opportunity to adversely affect M s.
Bauchman’s constitutional rights,” we dismissed her declaratory and injunctive
claims as moot. Id. at 548; see also Fischbach v. N.M . Activities Ass’n, 38 F.3d
1159, 1160 (10th Cir. 1994) (holding that due to student plaintiff’s graduation,
“the power of the [defendant state activities association] to adversely affect his
rights ha[d] ended” and the case was moot).
Here, too, Lane and Rice have graduated, and no longer serve on the board
of the Collegian. Because defendants can no longer impinge upon plaintiffs’
exercise of freedom of the press, plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive
relief are moot.
An exception to the mootness doctrine exists for cases that are “capable of
repetition, yet evading review.” M urphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982)
(quotations omitted). But this exception applies only when: “(1) the challenged
action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or
expiration, and (2) there [i]s a reasonable expectation that the same complaining
party w[ill] be subjected to the same action again.” Id. (quoting W einstein v.
Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975) (per curiam)); see also Seminole Nation, 321
F.3d at 943. Although Lane and Rice’s claims as student editors arguably meet
-9-
the first prong of this test, they fail to satisfy the second prong. Because only
KSU students serve as editors of the Collegian, there is no reasonable expectation
that Lane and Rice will be subjected, post-graduation, to censorship by defendants
in connection with that newspaper. See id. Thus, we can carve out no exception
to the mootness doctrine for their claims.
Plaintiffs have not formally sued in a representative capacity, and there has
been no effort on anyone’s part to substitute current editors as parties. Student
Publications, Inc., the non-profit corporate publisher, was neither named initially
as a party nor has it sought to join this litigation. Amici urge us to confer third-
party standing to plaintiffs on behalf of current and future Collegian editors.
Given that Johnson did not appeal, and neither the publisher nor the present
editors have joined this litigation, we cannot countenance this type of end-run
around the general requirement that parties raise their own claims. “Third-party
standing requires not only an injury in fact and a close relation to the third party,
but also a hindrance or inability of the third party to pursue his or her own
claims.” Terrell v. INS, 157 F.3d 806, 809 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing M iller v.
Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 447 (1998) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). Nothing in the
pleadings permits us to conclude that the publisher and current editors are
hindered from bringing suit to vindicate their ow n First Amendment rights.
III
W hen a civil case becomes moot pending appellate adjudication, “[t]he
-10-
established practice . . . is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand
with a direction to dismiss.” United States v. M unsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36,
39, (1950). “Vacatur is in order when mootness occurs through . . . circumstances
not attributable to the parties.” Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520
U.S. 43, 71 (1997) (citation omitted). Accordingly, we VAC ATE the decision of
the district court and R EM A N D with instructions to DISM ISS.
-11-