United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-50938

Rockett Special Utility District, 

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Will McAdams, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Public 

Utility Commission of Texas; Lori Cobos, in her official capacity as 

Commissioner of the Public Utility Commission of Texas; Jimmy 

Glotfelty, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Public Utility 

Commission of Texas; Thomas Gleeson, in his official capacity as 

Executive Director of the Public Utility Commission of Texas; Alamo 

Mission, L.L.C.; City of Red Oak Industrial 

Development Corporation, 

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:19-CV-1007

Before Stewart, Costa, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 10, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-50938 Document: 00516008727 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/10/2021
No. 20-50938

2

Plaintiff Rockett Special Utility District is a retail public utility. Defendants Alamo Mission LLC and Red Oak Industrial Development Corporation each petitioned the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) to remove some land from Rockett’s service area. Rockett sued, seeking to stop 

everyone involved—the PUC’s commissioners, its executive director,1 Alamo Mission, and Red Oak—through declaratory and injunctive relief. Rockett claimed that a “Conditional Commitment” by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to back a loan gives Rockett protections from 

service-area encroachment under 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b). But now on appeal, 

Rockett no longer has a Conditional Commitment. It has received a “Loan 

Note Guarantee” from the USDA, which is the subject of litigation in a different case but not this one.2

An issue is moot when “it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Knox v. Serv. Emps. 

Int’l Union, Loc. 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307 (2012) (cleaned up and citations 

omitted)). It is impossible for us to grant effectual injunctive or declaratory 

relief when the basis for that relief no longer exists. See Lewis v. Cont’l Bank 

Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 478–79 (1990) (holding claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot due to an intervening congressional amendment). Here, 

1 The PUC’s commissioners and executive director have changed since Rockett 

filed this suit. We have substituted the current officeholders. See 

Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).

2 Plaintiff’s Original Complaint at 10, Rockett Special Utility District v. Botkin, No. 

20-CV-1207 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2020) (Dkt. 1) (“[T]he USDA issued . . . a Loan Note 

Guarantee . . . to Rockett.”). Alamo Mission has asked us to take judicial notice of this new 

lawsuit. No party opposed its motion, and we may take judicial notice of proceedings in the 

district court. In re Deepwater Horizon, 934 F.3d 434, 440 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) 

(citation omitted). Therefore, we GRANT Alamo Mission’s pending motion for us to take 

judicial notice of Rockett’s new suit.

Case: 20-50938 Document: 00516008727 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/10/2021
No. 20-50938

3

the basis for granting prospective relief no longer exists. Simply put, Rockett

no longer has a Conditional Commitment. Rather, it has a Loan Note Guarantee that is not part of this litigation. Because we cannot grant Rockett effectual relief, this case is moot.

“When a case becomes moot on appeal, the appellate court should 

vacate the order of the district court and order dismissal of the action.” In re 

Taylor, 916 F.2d 1027, 1028 (5th Cir. 1990). Sometimes there is another option—vacate and remand—when (1) “the mootness is attributable to a 

change in the legal framework governing the case,” and (2) “the plaintiff may 

have some residual claim under the new framework that was understandably 

not asserted previously.” Lewis, 494 U.S. at 482. Rockett contends that this

case fits within this exception. We disagree. The legal framework governing 

this case has not changed. Only Rockett’s rights under that legal framework 

have. Plus, Rockett has already asserted any residual claim it may have in its 

separate suit. Therefore, we will stick with our general rule. 

* * *

For these reasons, we DISMISS this appeal, VACATE the district 

court’s judgment, and REMAND this case to the district court with 

instructions to DISMISS. Red Oak’s pending motion for us to take judicial 

notice of further proceedings in the PUC is DENIED.

Case: 20-50938 Document: 00516008727 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/10/2021