Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02236/USCOURTS-ca10-87-02236-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

U!.1ited States Court of Appeals ··r ., ~, :- ~-, r ;,. .... ' ;: 

Leopoldo M. Vasquez, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

Edward D. Baca, Major General,) 

New Mexico Army National ) 

Guard and The Nationl Guard ) 

Bureau, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

FEB 2 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Cie!k 

No. 87-2236 

(D. C. No. CIV 87-0553-SC) 

(D. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, SETH and McKAY, Circuit Judges 

This appeal arises from the district court's order denying 

the plaintiff-appellant relief on his motion for a preliminary 

injunction. The district court ruled that there was not a 

substantial likelihood that plaintiff would prevail on the merits. 

Subsequent to this appeal being filed, the district court 

dismissed the Second Amended Complaint as to both defendant Edward 

D. Baca and defendant National Guard Bureau without prejudice. 

The court's Memorandum Opinion and Order stated that the matter is 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case,. res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. . 

Appellate Case: 87-2236 Document: 01019962912 Date Filed: 02/02/1990 Page: 1 
not justiciable at least until certain military administrative 

- appeals are exhausted. 

Plaintiff-appellant Vasquez did not appeal the order 

dismissing his second amended complaint without prejudice. Since 

there is no live controversy, as shown by the record, between the 

parties concerning the merits of the second amended complaint, 

this appeal must be dismissed as the issues on appeal concerning 

the denial of the preliminary injunction are now moot. See u. S. 

ex rel. Bergen v. Lawrence, 848 F.2d 1503, 1512 (10th Cir. 1988); 

Park Cty. Res. Coun. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 817 F.2d 

609, 614-15 (10th Cir. 1977); Baker v. Brey, 701 F.2d 119, 122 

(10th Cir. 1983). For these reasons the appeal is DISMISSED. 

2 

Entered for the Court 

William J. Holloway, Jr. 

Chief Judge 

Appellate Case: 87-2236 Document: 01019962912 Date Filed: 02/02/1990 Page: 2