N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT SHAR ON NEW TON-NATIONS, Plaintiff, And DONALD M C C A

N TS an d NAHRIN SHAM OON, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. THOM AS B ETLAC H, Dire c tor of the Ariz ona He a lth C are C onta inm e nt Sy ste m and KATHLEEN SEB ELIUS, Se c re ta ry of the Unite d State s De pa

rtm e nt of Hum an Se rvic e s, in the ir offic ia l c a pa c itie s, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-16152 D.C . No. 2:03-c v-02506-ROS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na R osly n O. Silve r, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding 

# FIL E D APR 15 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.Subm itte d April 10, 2014 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : TALLM AN a

nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s, a nd DUFFY, Se n ior Distric t Judge . *** Pla intiffs a

re a c e rtifie d c la ss of re side nts of Ariz ona and e nrolle e s in Ariz ona ’ s sta

te M e dic a id Progra

m , Ariz o na

He a lth C a

re C ost C onta inm e nt

Sy ste m (“ AHC C C S” ), who a

ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision gra nting De fe nda

ntsAppe l le e s’ m otion to dism iss the ir c la i m s a s m o ot. Pla intiffs original ly c h a lle nge d the a pprova l of inc re a se d patie nt c opa y m e nts in a

n Ariz o na M e d i c a id de m onstra

tion proje c t tha

t provide d he a l thc are be ne fits to individua ls not othe rwise c ove re d by

Ariz ona ’ s M e dic a id pla

n. It is a we ll-se ttle d tha

t unde r Artic le III of the C o nstitution a fe de ra l c ourt’ s jurisdic tion is lim

ite d to livec a s e s a

nd c ontrove rsie s . U.S. C onst. a rt. III, § 2, c l. 1. In orde r for a

fe de ra l c o urt to e xe rc ise jurisdic tion ove r a c la im , “ a litiga nt m ust have suffe re d, or be thre ate ne d with, a n a c tua l injury

tra c e a ble to thede fe nda

nt a nd like ly to be re dre sse d by

a favora ble judic ia l de c ision.” Le w is v. C ont’l Bank C orp. , 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). The Ariz ona M e dic a id de m onstra

tion progra

m at

** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honora

ble Ke vin Thom a s Duffy , Se n ior Distric t Judge for the U.S. Distric t C ourt for theSouthe rn Distric t of Ne w York, sitting by

de s igna tion. 2issue and its c orre sponding adm inistra tive re c o rd e xpire d

on Oc tobe r 21, 2011, and, a s suc h, this C ourt is una ble to gra nt e ffe c tive re lie f in this a ppe a l be c a

use the c ha lle nge d a dm i nistra

tive de c ision a

nd its c o rre s ponding a dm i nistra tive re c ord a

re no longe r in e ffe c t. Se ege ne rally Grand C any on Trust

v. U.S. Bure au of Re c lamation , 691 F.3d 1008, 1017 (9th C ir. 2012). There fore , a ll c la im s ste m m ing from tha t progra m and its a dm i nistra

tive re c o rd are m oot. This is not a

situa tion “ c a pa ble of re pe tition, y e t

e v a ding re vie w.” This c ourt re c ogniz e s tha

t while“ the m ootne ss doc t rine ge n e ra lly

ba rs c la im s c ha lle nging a

n a c tion tha

t ha s a lre a dy

ta k e n pla c e , the re is a

n e xc e ption for c la im s whic h ‘ m ay

be re pe at e d a

nd y e t e va de re vie w.’ ” N w . Re s. Info. C tr., Inc . v. N

at’l Marine Fishe rie s Se rv . , 56 F.3d 1060, 1070 (9th C ir. 1995) (quoting Alask a Fish & W ildlife Fe d’n v. Dunk

le , 829 F.2d 933, 939 (9th C i r.1987)). To qualify for this e xc e ption, “the injury

suffe re d m

ust beof a

ty pe inhe re ntly

lim ite d in dura t ion suc h tha t it is like ly

a lwa y s to be c om e m o ot be fore fe de ra l c o urt litiga tion is c om ple t e d. C tr. for Biological Div e rsity v . Lohn , 511 F.3d 960, 965 (9th C ir. 2007). As a

ge ne ra l m atte r, a ge nc y de c isions fall within the “ c a pa ble of re p e tition” e xc e ption to the

m ootne ss doc trine if i) theduration of the c ha lle nge d a c tion is too short to allow full litiga

tion be fore it c e a se s, a

nd ii) the re is a

re a sona ble e xpe c tation tha

t the c om pla ining pa

rty will besubje c t to thesa

m e a c tion a ga in. 3Gre e npe ac eAc tion v. Frank lin , 14 F.3d 1324, 1329 (9th C ir. 1992). This a ppe a l fa ils to me e t e ithe r of the se re quire m e nts. First, Plai ntiffs’ c la im s fa i l to sa tisfy the durationa l re quire m e nt ne e de d to qua lify for this e xc e ption. This c ourt ha s c onsiste ntly

he ld tha t “ an issuetha

t ‘ e va de s re vie w’ is onewhic h, in its re gula r c ourse , re solve s itse lf without allowing suffic ie nt tim e for a ppe l late re vie w.” Biodiv e rsity

Le gal Found. v. Badgle

y , 309 F.3d 1166, 1173–74 (9th Ci r. 2002). Pla i ntiffs ha d am

p le tim e to fully

litiga te the se issue s , a

nd the y did just tha

t. Pla i ntiffs’ c la im s do not e v a de re vie w be c a use the y have be e n re vie we d se ve ra l tim e s a nd by se ve ra l c ourts. Se c ond, the re is no re a sona ble e xpe c tation tha

t Pla i ntiffs will be

subje c t to this sa

m e a c t ion a ga in. It is unlike l y , if not e ntire ly im possible , tha

t this dispute ove r the suffic ie nc y an d de ve lopm e nt of the a dm inistra

tive re c ord a c c om

pa ny ing Ariz ona ’ s prior de m onstra tion proje c t will arise a g a i n be c a

use tha t progra m ha s e xpire d a

n d wa s re pla c e d by

a ne w de m onstra

tion proje c t with a

ne w a dm inistra

t ive re c ord. Ultimate ly , Pla intiffs c annot de m onstra

te that the fa c ts on a

ppe a l fa ll within the

na rrow “ c a pa ble of re pe tition”e xc e p tion to the m ootne ss doc trine . This c a se is m o o t be c a

use the c ha lle nge d a ge nc y de c ision a

nd a dm inistra

tive re c o rd are now inope rative and a ne w a dm inistra

tive re c ord supports the

a p prova l

4of the subse que nt de m onstra tion proje c t a

nd the c orre sponding incre a se d c opa ym e nts. Ac c ordingly , Pla i ntiffs’ a p pe a l is m oot a

n d is he re b y

DISM ISSED.

5