United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________ 

No. 19-2871

___________________________ 

Paul Gillpatrick; Niccole A. Wetherell

 Plaintiffs - Appellees

v.

Scott Frakes, Director, in their official capacities

 Defendant - Appellant

Denise Davidson, Warden, in their official capacities; Robert Madsen, Warden, in 

their official capacities

 Defendants 

Michele Capps, in her official capacity as Warden of the Nebraska State 

Penitentiary; Angela Folts-Oberle, in her official capacity

 Defendants - Appellants

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln

____________ 

Submitted: November 18, 2020

 Filed: May 19, 2021 

____________ 

Before BENTON, ERICKSON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. 

____________
-2- 

BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Paul M. Gillpatrick filed a suggestion of death for his co-plaintiff, Niccole A. 

Wetherell. See Fed. R. App. P. 43. Because they can no longer marry, the appeal 

of the merits judgment is moot. See Gillpatrick v. Frakes, 2019 WL 7037367, at *8 

(D. Neb. June 7, 2019). The “happenstance” of Wetherell’s death moots the appeal

of the merits judgment, so vacatur of it is appropriate. See U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. 

v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18, 23 (1994). See generally Arizonans for 

Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 71 (1997) (“Vacatur is in order when 

mootness occurs through happenstance—circumstances not attributable to the 

parties . . . .”); Robinson v. Pfizer, Inc., 855 F.3d 893, 898 (8th Cir. 2017) (“Once a 

case pending appeal becomes moot, federal appellate courts may dispose of the case 

as justice may require.”); 28 U.S.C. § 2106. 

In their initial brief, the appellants did not make any “meaningful argument”

against the separate attorney’s fees judgment. See Chay-Velasquez v. Ashcroft, 367 

F.3d 751, 756 (8th Cir. 2004) (“Since there was no meaningful argument on this 

claim in his opening brief, it is waived.”). See also Cox v. Mortg. Elec. Registration

Sys., Inc., 685 F.3d 663, 674 (8th Cir. 2012) (stating that appellants “waived [an] 

issue by failing to provide a meaningful explanation of the argument and citation to 

relevant authority in their opening brief”). Normally, this failure waives any attack 

on that judgment. See Sipe v. Workhouse Custom Chassis, LLC, 572 F.3d 525, 528 

n.2 (8th Cir. 2009) (appellant waived argument by failing to include it in his 

appellate brief even though he listed it in his notice of appeal), citing Jenkins v. 

Winter, 540 F.3d 742, 751 (8th Cir. 2008). 

After the case was submitted for decision, this court requested briefing on “the 

effect of the suggestion of death.” In their responding briefs, the parties dispute 

whether the merits judgment’s mootness affects the district court’s attorney’s fees 

judgment. See Gillpatrick v. Frakes, 2019 WL 3944059, at *5 (D. Neb. Aug. 21, 

2019). In the absence of appropriate findings of fact—including prevailing party 

status, any acts by the parties between the entry of the merits judgment and its stay 
-3- 

order, and the amount of attorney’s fees that should be awarded—this court will not 

address the attorney’s fees judgment at this time. 

* * * * * * *

The district court’s merits judgment is vacated, and the case remanded for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

______________________________