NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

____________

No. 16-3234

____________

HONORABLE MICHAEL C. DUNSTON, 

in his official capacity as Presiding Judge 

of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands

v.

GOVERNOR OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS; 

HAROLD W. WILLOCKS, strictly as interested party,

Governor of the Virgin Islands,

Appellant 

____________

On Appeal from the District Court 

of the Virgin Islands

(D.C. No. 1-16-cv-00038)

District Judge: Honorable Curtis V. Gomez

____________

Argued December 13, 2016

Before: CHAGARES, JORDAN, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

(Opinion Filed: December 22, 2016)

Geoffrey P. Eaton [Argued]

Steffen N. Johnson

Andrew C. Nichols

Winston & Strawn LLP

1700 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006
2

Claude E. Walker

Pamela R. Tepper

Su-Layne U. Walker

Office of Attorney General of Virgin Islands

Department of Justice

34-38 Kronprindsens Gade

GERS Complex, 2nd Floor

St. Thomas, VI 00802

Counsel for Appellant

Edward L. Barry [Argued]

2120 Company Street

Christiansted, VI 00820

Counsel for Appellee

____________

OPINION*

____________

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

Virgin Islands Governor Kenneth Mapp appeals a judgment of the District Court 

enjoining him from removing Michael Dunston as Presiding Judge of the Superior Court 

of the Virgin Islands. Because subsequent legislation has rendered this case moot, we will 

dismiss the appeal.

On June 16, 2016, Governor Mapp informed Judge Dunston that he would be 

removed as Presiding Judge in favor of Judge Harold Willocks. Governor Mapp sent a 

letter the following day informing Judge Dunston that the removal would be effective 

June 25, 2016 at 11:59 p.m. In response, Judge Dunston filed a complaint with the 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does 

not constitute binding precedent.
3

District Court under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, seeking a 

declaration that the Governor’s attempt to remove him violated local law and the Revised 

Organic Act, 48 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1645 and an injunction preventing his removal. On June 

24, the Court entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Governor from 

removing Judge Dunston until July 8, and later extended that order to July 22. On July 22, 

the District Court issued a permanent injunction preventing the Governor from removing 

Judge Dunston, finding that Governor Mapp’s asserted authority would violate separation 

of powers principles implicit in the Revised Organic Act.

The Virgin Islands Legislature has since passed, and the Governor has approved, 

Act No. 7888. As relevant to this appeal, that Act provides: “The Presiding Judge of the 

Superior Court holding office on the effective date of this Act may continue to serve as 

Presiding Judge until the expiration of the current six-year term as a Superior Court 

Judge.” App. 198. The Act further provides, “[n]othing contained in this title may be 

construed to grant authority to the Governor of the Virgin Islands to remove . . . the 

Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands.” App. 199.

“Article III of the Constitution grants the federal courts the power to adjudicate 

only actual, ongoing cases or controversies.” Khodara Envtl., Inc. ex rel. Eagle Envtl. 

L.P. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186, 192–93 (3d Cir. 2001). “The case-or-controversy 

requirement subsists through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and 

appellate[,] . . . [and] the parties must continue to have a personal stake in the ultimate 

disposition of the lawsuit.” Chafin v. Chafin, 133 S. Ct. 1017, 1023 (2013) (internal 
4

quotation marks and citations omitted). “[A] case becomes moot only when it is 

impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).

By virtue of the District Court’s temporary restraining order and injunction, Judge 

Dunston was never removed from his role as Presiding Judge.

1 Therefore, he was the 

Presiding Judge “holding office on the effective date of [the] Act.” As such, he is entitled 

to serve the remainder of his six-year term. Whatever the merits of Governor Mapp’s 

argument that he previously was authorized to remove Judge Dunston, he lacks that

authority today. Therefore, we are no longer capable of granting any effectual relief to

Governor Mapp regarding his attempt to remove Judge Dunston. Because this appeal 

presents no live case or controversy, we will dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.

 

1 Mapp argues that the equitable relief the District Court granted Dunston was 

ineffectual for want of jurisdiction. We disagree because the District Court had federal 

question jurisdiction over the interpretation of the Revised Organic Act—a federal law—

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Kendall v. Russell, 572 F.3d 126, 131, n.4 (3d Cir. 

2009) (striking down an act providing for removal of Superior Court judges as violating 

separation of powers principles in the Revised Organic Act).