### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 12-70012

ANTHONY BARTEE, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. SUSAN D REED, BEXAR COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:12-CV-420

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Hours before his scheduled execution, Anthony Bartee brought suit under 42 U.S

. C

. § 1983 in federal district court, alleging that the district attorney of Bexar County violate d h i s E i g h t h a n d Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying h i m access to DNA evidence for forensic testing pursuant to Chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e . The district court stayed the execution pe n d i n g d i s position of the § 1983 claim. The County appealed immediately, moving this Court to vacate the stay. This Court instead requested that the U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May29 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm ined t hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 12-70012 Document: 00511869877 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/29/2012No. 12-70012

p a r ties submit supplemental briefing the following w e e k

. T h e e x e c u t i o n w a r r a n t expired in the meantime. In its supplemental brief, the County acknowledged that there remained untested physical evidence despite a 2010 order from the state trial court that “any other available evidence that has not already been tested be tested.” The County’ s b r i e f asserts, however, that the remaining evidence has now been delivered to the Bexar County Criminal Investigations Laboratory and is “in the process of being tested.” Neither party has addressed whether the C o u n t y ’ s a s s e r t i o n , i f true, moots the underly i n g § 1 9 8 3 case. Even so, we must raise that question sua sponte because it implicates the justiciability of the § 1983 suit going forward. At this 1 juncture, however, when a recor d b a r ely exists, the mootness determination depends on record development that does not commonly take place in appellate courts. The district court is the proper forum for developing the record requisite to a determination of mootness. 2 We therefore remand this case for the limited purpose of determining in the first instance whether the case is now moot. We retain jurisdiction over the County’s motion to vacate the stay. I n o t h e r w ords, this is a LIMITED REMAND.

See, e .g. , U

nited State s v. V

il la nuev a- Di az , 634 F.3d 844 , 848 (5t h Cir

. 2011)

. 1
See Ho rnbe ck Of

fs hore Serv s. , LLC v. Sal az ar , No. 10-3 0585, 2010 WL 3219469 , at *1- 2 2 (5t h Cir. Aug. 16, 2010) (unr epo rte d per cur iam ord er) ; Spec tor v. Nor we gia n Crui se Line Ltd. , 427 F.3d 285, 285 (5t h Cir. 2005) (p er cur iam ord er) ; see al so, e. g. , Fund for Ani ma ls , Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgm t. , 460 F.3d 13, 24 (D .C. Cir. 2006) ; cf

. Larr em ore v. Lyke s Bros

. Inc. , 454 F. App ’x 305, 307 (5t h Cir. 2011) (unp ublis hed ) ( p e r c u riam ) (c olle cti ng cas es rem andi ng for “d evelop me nt of the rec ord and det erm inati on of [w h ethe r] juris dic tio n is app rop riat e”)

. 2 Case: 12-70012 Document: 00511869877 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/29/2012