UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1245
THE LEISER LAW FIRM, PLLC; PHILLIP B. LEISER, ESQ.,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
THE HONORABLE GAYLORD L. FINCH, JR.,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-00834-CMH-IDD)
Submitted: September 30, 2016 Decided: October 24, 2016
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Phillip Ben-Zion Leiser, THE LEISER LAW FIRM, PLLC, Tysons
Corner, Virginia, for Appellants. Mark R. Herring, Attorney
General, Rhodes B. Ritenour, Deputy Attorney General, Nicholas
F. Simopoulos, Erin R. McNeill, Assistant Attorneys General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Appellants appeal the district court’s order dismissing
their complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We dismiss the appeal as moot.
“If a live case or controversy ceases to exist after a suit
has been filed, the case will be deemed moot and dismissed for
lack of standing.” Pender v. Bank of Am. Corp., 788 F.3d 354,
368 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). “Mootness principles
derive from the requirement in Article III of the Constitution
that federal courts may adjudicate only disputes involving a
case or controversy.” Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 808
(4th Cir. 2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
“The case-or-controversy requirement applies to all stages of a
federal case.” Id.
“To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must show
(1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection
between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a
likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.” Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 134 S. Ct. 2334,
2341 (2014) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“The federal courts are without power to decide questions that
cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.”
CVLR Performance Horses, Inc. v. Wynne, 792 F.3d 469, 474 (4th
Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “A
2
case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live
or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the
outcome.” Williams, 716 F.3d at 809 (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
“A change in factual circumstances can moot a case on
appeal, such as when the plaintiff receives the relief sought in
his or her claim, or when an event occurs that makes it
impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief to the
plaintiff.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted). “Courts recognize an exception to the mootness
doctrine when (1) the challenged action is in its duration too
short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration;
and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same
complaining party will be subject to the same action again.”
Id. at 809-10 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“However, courts also have cautioned that this is a narrow
exception, which is limited to the exceptional situation.” Id.
at 810 (citations and internal quotations omitted). Therefore,
“a party seeking to invoke this exception to the mootness
doctrine bears the burden of showing its application.” Id.
(citations omitted).
In this action, Appellants sued Appellee, who was the judge
presiding over a state court lawsuit against them. They claimed
Appellee violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment
3
when he overruled their demurrer based on absolute privilege and
they were forced to defend the suit. They sought a declaratory
judgment that Appellee’s actions were in violation of 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 (2012). The district court dismissed the complaint based
on judicial immunity. After the court’s order issued, the state
court lawsuit was nonsuited. Appellee contends this appeal is
moot. Appellants contend the alleged violations of their
constitutional rights fall within the mootness exception for
disputes capable of repetition yet evading review. We have
reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, and we conclude
that Appellants fail to sustain their burden of showing that the
exception is applicable.
We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4