# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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 officia l 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 Texa s USDC No. 1:19

- CV

- 1007

Before **Stewart, Costa,** and **Willett,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not preced ent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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: 09/10/2021No. 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

. Rocket t claimed that a “Conditional Commitment” by the United States Department of Agriculture ( **USDA** ) to back a loan gives Rocket t 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 litig ation 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 judicia l notice of this new lawsuit. No party oppose d its motion , and w e 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: 09/10/2021No. 20

- 50938

3 the basis for granting prospective relief no longer exists. Simply put, Rocket t 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 t hat 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

. T herefore , we will stick with ou r general rule.

***** ***** *****

For the se 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