Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03115/USCOURTS-ca10-89-03115-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FI LED 

Uoited StateS Coutt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

PROTECT OUR EAGLES' TREES (POETs), ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

CITY OF LAWRENCE, KANSAS; LAWRENCE ) 

RIVER PLAZA ASSOCIATES; UNITED STATES ) 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; UNITED STATES ) 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; UNITED STATES ) 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 2 6 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-3115 

(D.C. No. 89-2090) 

( D. Kan.) 

(715 F. Supp. 996) 

Before BRORBY, EBEL, Circuit Judges, and JOHNSON**, District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Alan B. Johnson, District 

District Court for the District of 

designation. 

Judge, 

Wyoming, 

United States 

sitting by 

This appeal seeks review of a ruling of the United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas denying plaintiff's 

motion for a temporary restraining order and dismissing the 

* 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: 89-3115 Document: 01019967094 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 1 
./ 

action. Protect Our Eagles' Trees v. City of Lawrence, 715 F. 

Supp. 996 (D. Kan. 1989). The underlying action was brought 

pursuant to several environmental statutes and sought primarily to 

enjoin the destruction of a particular stand of trees near the 

Bowerstock Dam on the Kansas River in Lawrence. 

The district court denied all relief as to the various 

claimed violations of the statutes. No stay of the court's order 

was sought, either in the district court or in this court. 

Consequently, the trees in question were removed over a year ago 

and the development has proceeded, nearly to completion. 

Generally, an appeal should be dismissed as moot when events 

occur that prevent an appellate court from granting any effective 

relief. Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. FERC, 890 F.2d 1121, 1126 

(10th Cir. 1989); FDIC v. Jennings, 816 F.2d 1488, 1490 (10th Cir. 

1987); Pursifull v. Eakin, 814 F.2d 1501, 1506 (10th Cir. 1987). 

Where the act sought to be enjoined has occurred, an appeal of a 

district court order denying an injunction is moot. Thournir v. 

Buchanan, 710 F.2d 1461, 1463 (10th Cir. 1983). Even if we were 

to conclude that the district court erred, no effective relief is 

available. See Neighbors Organized to Insure a Sound Env't v. 

McArtor, 878 F.2d 174, 178 (6th Cir. 1989}(issue on appeal moot 

when airport terminal operational and court not in position to 

prevent what has occurred); City of Romulus v. County of Wayne, 

634 F.2d 347 , 349 (6th Cir. 1980}(action is moot where activities 

sought to be enjoined have occurred and can no longer be 

prevented); Florida Wildlife Fed'n v. Goldschmidt, 611 F.2d 547, 

549 (5th Cir. 1980}(same, especially where no stay on appeal 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-3115 Document: 01019967094 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 2 
sought); Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 

1379 (9th Cir. 1978)(same). See also Ogunquit Village Corp. v. 

Davis, 553 F.2d 243, 246 (1st Cir. 1977)(court would not disturb 

completed project for minor lapses in planning). The relief 

sought must be capable of addressing the alleged harm. Blinder, 

Robinson & Co. v. United States SEC, 748 F.2d 1415, 1418 (10th 

Ci r . 19 84 ), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1125 (1985); see also Park 

County Resource Council v. United States Dep't of Agriculture, 817 

F.2d 609, 615 (10th Cir. 1987)(court needs ability to redress 

issue to have power to address it). 

Further, this is not a situation capable of repetition yet 

evading review because there is no reasonable expectation that the 

parties will again be embroiled in the controversy. See Society 

of Professional Journalists v. Secretary of Labor, 832 F.2d 1180, 

1184-85 (10th Cir. 1987)(no demonstrated probability that present 

fact situation will recur). 

Plaintiff, in its argument that the matter is not moot, 

suggests we could revoke or modify the Corps of Engineers' permit 

or order that the facility be dismantled, altered, or operated 

differently, citing Van Abbema v. Fornell, 807 F.2d 633 (7th Cir. 

1986). In Van Abbema, the court held that the appeal was not made 

moot by the fact that construction (allegedly in violation of 

NEPA) had begun. A noteworthy difference between Van Abbema and 

this case is that in Van Abbema the claimed injuries flowing from 

improper issuance of the permit ''occur both in the construction 

and in the operation of the facility." 807 F.2d at 636. Here, by 

contrast, this whole lawsuit was about saving these particular 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-3115 Document: 01019967094 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 3 
trees. The facts surrounding Van Abbema are thus wholly different 

than the situation here. 

Because we can provide no effective relief for plaintiff, we 

conclude the appeal is moot. In accordance with Duke Power Co. v. 

Greenwood County, 299 U.S. 259, 267 (1936), we vacate the district 

court's judgment and remand with instructions to dismiss the 

complaint. See Great W. Sugar Co. v. Nelson, 442 U.S. 92 (1979). 

VACATED and REMANDED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-3115 Document: 01019967094 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 4