### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 60272 con soli d a ted w i th N o. 09- 60424

B R IA N M O O R E , P l a i n ti ff-A p p ell a n t ,
ve r s us D E L B E R T H O S E M A N N , in H is O ffic ia l C a p a c ity a s M is s is s ip p i S e c r e ta r yo f S ta te , D efen da n t
- A pp el l ee .

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt fo rth e S o u th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, SM ITH an d D eM O S S , C i rcui tJu dg es. JE R R YE
. SM ITH , C i rcui tJu dg e:
B ri an M oore s u ed the M i ssi ssi pp iSe c r e t ar y of State (t h e “ S ecret ary”) af t er bei n g l ef

tof f t h at s t ate’ s 2008 p resi den t i alb al l ot
. Th e di st ri ctcourtdi sm i ssed t he s ui tas m oo tand deni ed M oo r e’ s m ot i on f or co st s and fee s und erFeder al R u l e of C i vi lP rocedure 4( d)( 2)

. W e revers e t h e di sm i ssalan d rem an d becau se, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December

18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkNo. 09- 60272

Moore’s vice-pre sidentialrunningmate , Ste wart Alexan der , an dth eN atur alLaw P ar- 1 tywereals o partie s. Mo ore alo n e app eals
. 2 al t ho ugh the ca s e i s no tm o o t , w e m us ta bs t ai n. M o o r e ’ s c hal l e nge , l i ke m any el ect i on di spu t es, i s based o n a n inter pretat i on of un cert ai n st ate l aw , w h i ch
s ho ul d be r e s o l ve d a tt he s t at e l e ve lb e f o r e w e c o ns i de rw ad i ng i nt o a c o ns t i t ut i on alt h i cket. W e af f i rm t h e den i alof

cos t s and fees.
I. M o o r e w as t he 2 00 8 pr esi den t i alcand i da t e f or t h e Soci al i stP art y U S A and
w as al so s el ect ed as the N aturalL aw P art y’ s presi den t i alcand i da t e on the M i ss is s ip p i b a llo t. M is s is s ip p i la w re q u ir e s a ll p r e s id e n tia l ca n d i d a t e s to s u b m it t he i rq ual i f

yi ng pa pe r s t o t he Se c r e t ar y “ no t l e s s t han s i xt y da ys pr e vi o us t o t he d a y o f th e electi on . ” M IS S
. C ODE A NN . § 23- 15

- 78 5( 2)

. Fort he 2 00 8 e l e c t i o n, t he
s ix ty -d a y d e a d lin e fe ll o n F r id a y , S e p te m b e r5
. T h e s ta tu te d o e s n o t e x p lic itly pr o vi de a s pe c i f

i c t i m e o f

dayby w hi c h a c and i da t e ’ s pa pe r s m us tb e f i l e d o n t he due dat e, buti n ac c or dance w i t h anot her st at ut e, t he Sec r et ar y’ s of f i c e c l os es at 5 : 0 0 p . m. O n Sep t em ber 5, short l y af t er 5: 00 p
. m . , t a x idri vers hi red by M oore arr i ve d a tt he Sec r e t ar y’ s of f i c e t o de l i ve rM o o r e ’ s pa pe r s , b utt he o f f i c e ha d c l o s e d. T h e dri vers dep osi t ed M oore’ s pa pers at t h e doorst ep and l ef t
. B ecau se M oore d i d n ot m ee t t h e fi l i n g d ea d l i n e, h i s n a m e w a s l eft off the ba l l ot. 1 O n S ep tem b er 16 , M oo re su ed D elbe rt H ose m a n n i n h i s off i ci a lcap a ci ty
as Se c r e t ar y, s e e ki ng a pr e l i m i nar y i nj unc t i o n t o c e r t i f y M o o r e f

o rt he pr e s i de nt i al ball ot an d a prel i m i n ary an d p erm an en ti nj u n ct i on t o preven tt h e Secret ary f r om enf or c i ng any unauthor i ze d d ea d l i n es for ba l l ot qu a l i fi ca ti on of p resid en ti al
c and i da t e s . M o o r e ar gue d t hathi s c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ght s w e r e v i o l at e d when t he S ecret ary i m posed t h e dead l i n e w i t h ou texpress l egi sl ative au t h ori t y. Th e di st r i c tc our tdeni ed M oo r e’ s r eques t f ora pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on o n Sept em ber29.No. 09- 60272

3 W e s ubs e que nt l y de ni e d M o o r e ’ s m o t i o n f o ra s t aya nd p r e l i m i nar y i nj unc t i o n. M o o r e a ppe al e d t he de ni alo f a n inj unc t i o n t o t hi s c o ur tb utv o l unt ar i l y w i t hdr e w hi s a ppe ala f

t e rt he e l e c t i o n ha d o c c ur r e d. T h ou gh the op p ortu n i ty for an i nj u n cti on h a d en d ed , M oo re co n ti n u ed to
s e e k a d e c la r a to r yju d g m e n t t h a t t h e 5 :0 0 p .m . d e a d lin e w a s u n c o n s tit u tio n a l. Th e di st r i c tc our tgr ant ed t he Sec r et ar y’ s m ot i on to d i sm i ss t he c om pl ai nt as
m o o tund e rFe de r alRul e of C i vi lP r o c e dur e 12(c )

. I n r e s po ns e t o M o o r e ’ s a r gum entt hathi s c l ai m fel lunder t he “ c apabl e of r epe t i t i on, ye tev adi ng r evi ew ” ex c e pt i o n t o m o o t ne s s , t he c o ur t f o und t hat t he r e w as no “ r e as o nab l e e xp e c t at i o n”
o r“d e m o n s tr a te d p r o b a b ility ” th a t M o o r e o ra n yo th e rN a tu r a l L a w P a r ty p r e s id e n t i a lc a n d i d a t e s w o u l d “ a g a i n mi s s w h a tt h e yn o w k n o w t o b e t h e 5 : 0 0 p . m. d ea d l i n e” f

or fi l i n g. T h e cou rt recog n i ze d tha t t h i s ci rcu i t ha s ap p l i ed the m oo tnes s exc ept i on w hen ot heri ndi vi dual s i n t he pol i t i ca l pr oc es s m i ghtc hal l enge a l aw , buth el d thati n t he pr es entm at t eri tdi d “ nots ee m r eas onabl y l i kel y t hat
o th e rp r o s p e c tiv e p r e s id e n tia l/v ic e -p r e s id e n tia l c a n d id a te s w ill fa il to tim e lyfile th eir qu a l i fyi n g p a p ers b efore .

. . the off i ce closes a t 5: 0 0 p.m . ” M oore m oved fo r c ost s and fees pu rsuan tt o F ederalR u l e of C i vi lP rocedu re 4( d) on t h e t h eory t h at t h e S ecret ary h ad not s ati sf i ed a m an da t ory requi rem e ntt o w aive s e r vi c e . The di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d t he m o t i o n. O n appeal , M oo r e r enew s hi s ar gum ent s t hathi s c l ai m fal l s und ert he “ c apa bl e o f r e pe t i t i o n, y e te va di ng r e vi e w ” e xc e pt i o n a nd t hatt he 5 : 00 p. m . de ad l i ne is u n c o n s tit u tio n a l. S p e c ific a lly , M o o r e co n te n d s th a t t h e S ecre taryex ce e d e d h is aut ho r i t y i n v i ol ati on of Ar t i c l e I I , § 1 , c l
. 2 o f t he U ni t e d St at e s Cons t i t ut i o n, w h i ch provides thate ac h s t at e s hallc hoose presi den t i alel ect ors “ i n such m an n er as t h e L egi slaturet he r e o f m aydi rec t
. ” ( Em pha s i s a dde d. ) The ups ho to f t he
u n au t h ori zed dea dl i n e, say s M oore, is tha tM i ssi ssi pp ivi ol ated his an d voters ’ F i rsta n d F ou rt een t h A m en dm en tri gh t s to pa rt i ci pa t e in the p ol i t i calprocess .No. 09- 60272

Two appe als were do cketed: No. 09-60 272 , the appealof the dismissal as moot; and 2 No. 09-6042 4, the app eal of the dis mi ss al of themotion fo r cos tsand fee s. The app ealshave bee n consolidated. 4 M oore al so app eal s t h e den i alof hi s m ot i on f

or c ost s and fees. 2

II. W e f i rst ad dress w h et h er t h i s case i s nonj u st i ci able becau se t h e com pl et i on of t h e el ect i on renders i t m oot
. W e revi ew qu est i on s of sub j ectm att er j u ri sdi ct i on , i n cl u di n g t h e j u st i ci abil i t y i ssue of m oot n ess, de novo . Ct r . f o rI ndi v i dualFr e e do m v . Car m o uc he , 4 4 9 F .3d 6 5 5 , 6 5 9 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). M oot n ess i s “ t h e doct ri n e of st an di n g i n a t i m e f ram e. T h e requ i si t e persona li n t erestt h at m u stexi stat t h e com m en cem en tof l i t i gati on ( st and i n g) m u st
con ti n u e th rou gh ou t i ts existen ce (m oo tn ess ). ” Uni t e d S t at e s Parole Com m ’ n v. G er ag h ty , 445 U
. S. 388, 3 9 7 ( 1980)

. “ G ener al l y, any s etof c i r c um st ance s t hat el i m i nat es ac t ual c ont r ove r syaf t ert he c om m enc em entof a l aw sui tr ender s t hat
a cti on m oo t. ” C t r. forIn d i vi d u al Free d om , 44 9 F. 3d at 66 1. The Se c r e t ar y c o nt en ds t h at s u ch i s t h e case h ere, t h at t h e occurrence of t h e N ovem ber 200 8 el ect i o n m e ans t hat M o o r e c an no l o nge r s e e k m e ani ngf ulr e dr e s s f

o rt he c o ns t i t ut i on alvi ol ati on s he al l eges. A n i m portant excep t i on to the m oot n ess doctr i n e, h ow ever, is “att acks on practi ces t h at n o l on ger di rect l y af fect t h e att acking pa rt y, bu t are ‘ capa bl e of
r epe t i t i on’ w hi l e ‘ evadi ng r evi ew . ’ ” A lv a re z v . S m ith , N o . 0 8- 35 1, 2 00 9 U
. S. LE X I S 8941, at*1 0- *11 ( U
. S. D ec . 8, 2009) ( c i t i ng F ed. E l ect i on Com m ’

n v. Wi s. R igh tt o L if

e, I n c. , 5 5 1 U .S . 4 4 9 , 4 6 2 (2 0 0 7 ); S

. Pa c . T e r mi n a lCo

. v . ICC , 219 U
. S. 4 98 , 5 15 ( 19 11 ) )

. To i nvo ke t hate xc e pt i o n, a pa r t y m us ts ho w t hat“ ( 1) t he
c hal l enged ac t i on i s i n i t s durat i on t oo s hor tt o b e f ul l y l i t i gat ed pri orto c es sa t i o n o re x p i r a t i o n , a n d ( 2 ) t h e r e i s a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a tt h e s a me c o mp l a i n i n g p a rty w i l lb e su b j ect to the sam e a cti on ag a i n . ” Wi s. R igh tt o L if e, 551No. 09- 60272

C f. Storer v . Bro wn , 415 U.S. 724 , 73 7 n .8 (1 974) (“The 197 2 election is long over, and 3 no effectiverelief canbeprovi ded toth e candidates or voters, but this case is not mo ot, since the issues properly presented, and their effects on inde pende nt can didacies, will persist as th e C alifo rniast atute s areapp li edinf utureele ctio n s.”).

5 U
. S. at462. M o o r e s a tis fie s th e fir s t p r o n g : E le c tio n co n tr o v e r s ie s a r e p a r a d ig m a tic
exam pl es of

cases t h at c an n otbe f u l l y l i t i gated bef

ore the pa rt i cul ar contr oversy e x p ir e s . S ee C t r. f

or I n d i vi d u al Free d om , 4 49 F. 3d a t6 61
. W e t ur n t he n, t o t he second p rong. T h e re is good reason to s u pp ose t h at M oore m i gh tfai lt h at r equi r e m en t , b ec aus e he ha s no ta ve r r e d t hathe i s l i ke l y t o r un f o rPr e s i de nt ag ai n. F o l l o wi n gt h e l e a d o f t h e S u p r e me C o u r t , h o we v e r , i n e l e c t i o n c a s e s we hav e a ppl i e d t he s e c o nd p r o ng s o m e w hatl o o s e l y. I n C ente r f or I n d i vi d u al Free d om , i d. a t 6 6 2 , w e h e ld th a t “ e v e n if it w e r e d o u b tfu l” t h a t t h e p la in tiff w o u ld agai n be a f

fec t ed byt he al l ege dl y o f fendi ng el ec t i on s t atu te, “p r ec ede nt s ugg e s t[e d ] th a t [t h e ] c a s e [w a s ] n o t m o o t, b e c a u s e o th e rin d iv id u a ls ce r ta in ly [ w oul d] be af

fec t ed byt he c ont i nuin g ex i st enc e” of t he s t at ut e. I ti s t r ue t hat 3 th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s m o s t r e c e n t e le c tio n la w d e c is io n s , Da v i s v . F EC , 12 8 S

. C t. 27 59 (2008) , a nd Wisc o n sin R ig h t to L ifeb o th n o te d th a t t h e p la in tiffs h a d a ll e ge d t he y w o ul d a ga i n b e a dv e r s e l y af fe c t e d b y t he c o m pl ai ne d- o f l aw. Butt he C o u rt s til l “h a s n o t .
. . d ism iss e d a n ele cti o n c a s e a s m o o t w h e re th e p la in tiff fa i l e d t o a l l e g e t ha t he wou l d b e g o v e r ne d b y t he s a m e f l a wed l a w i n t he next electi on . ” Ku cin ich v . T ex . D em o cr a tic Pa rty , 5 6 3 F .3d 1 6 1 , 1 6 4 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 9 ). T h u s , w e re m a in “u n w illin gto d is m is s [ a ] c a s e a s m o o t w h e n ‘ th e is s u e s p r o p e r ly p r e s e n te d , a n d th e ire ffe c ts
. . . w ill p e r s is t a s th e [r e s tr ic tio n s ] a r e a p p lie d in futu re electi on s. ’ ” I

d. at165 ( c i t i ng S t orer , 4 1 5 U .S

. a t 7 3 7 n .8). Thati s t he s i t uat i o n he r e . The Se c r e t ary h as m ad e i tpl ai n t hathe i nt e nds to en for c e t he 5 : 00 p. m . de ad l i ne i n f ut ur e e l e c t i o ns . H e a dds t hatt he
c hanc e i s v e r y s m al l t hat M o o r e o ra ny o t he rpr e s i de nt i alc and i da t e w i l lm i s s t heNo. 09- 60272

6 dea dl i n e again. Th at i s besi de the poi n t , how ever. A s l on g as t h e com pl ai n ed-of d e a d lin e is in p la c e , fu tu r e ca n d id a te s in M is s is s ip p i w ill b e s u b je c t t o it a n d w ill
n ee d to con form to i ts d e m a n d s. T h u s, the eff ects of t h e d ea d l i n e w i l lpe rsist
. G i ve n t he e l e c t i o n l aw c on t ext, M o o r e ’ s c o m pl ai nts at i s f i e s b o t h pr o ngs o f

t he
m o o t ne s s e xc e pt i o n.
III. A l th ou gh M oo re’ s con sti tu ti on a lcl a i m su rv i ve s m oo tn ess , w e d ecli n e to reach the m eri t s. I n st ead , w e rem an d an d u rge t h e di st ri ctcourtt o consi der
w h e th e r to a b sta in on th e b a sis of R ail roadCom m i ssi on v. P u l l m an Co. , 312 U .S

. 4 9 6 (19 4 1 ). I n Pul l m an , plain ti ffs ch a l l en ge d , on bo th fed era lcon sti tu ti on a lan d state la w g r o u n d s , th e a u th o r ity o f th e T e x a s R a ilr o a d C o m m is s io n to is s u e a ra c ia lly di scr i m i n ator y order. T h e S u prem e C ou rta bstai n ed f rom deci di n g t h e case, becau se i tfoun d t h at i f T exas courts w ere to st ri ke dow n the C om m i ssi on ’ s act i on o n s t at e l aw gr o unds , i tw o ul d be unnec e s s ar y t o dec i de t he fe de r alc o ns t i t ut i o nalq ue s t i o n. A s th e C o u rt la te r e x p la in e d , th e m o ra l of Pul l m an w as that “ fede r al courts shou l d ab st ai n f rom dec ision w h en di f f i cul tan d u n set t l ed qu est i on s of st ate l aw m u stb e resol ved b ef ore a sub st an t i alf

ederalconst i t u t i on alqu est i on c an be de c i de d. By a bs t ai ni ng i n s uc h c as e s , fe de r alc o ur t s w i l l av o i d b o t h unn e c e s s a r ya dju d ic a tio n o f fe d e r a l q u e s tio n s a n d ‘ n e e d le s s fr ic tio n w ith s ta te p o lici es.’” Ha w a ii Ho u singA u th

. v . Mid k iff , 467 U
. S. 229 ( 1984) ( quot i ng Pul l m an , 312 U
. S

. at 500 )

. “ [ F ] or Pul l m an abst ent i on to be app r opr i at e . . . i tm usti nvol ve ( 1) a federal consti t u t i on al cha l l en ge t o st ate act i on an d ( 2) an un cl ear i ssue of st ate l aw tha t , if

resol ved , w ou l d m ak e itu n n ecess ary f or u s to r u l e on the federa lcon sti tu ti on a lqu estion
. ” Nati on w i d e Mu t
. Ins. Co. v. Un au t h orized P ract i ce of L aw Com m i t t ee , 2 8 3 F .3 d 6 5 0 , 6 5 3 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). I n o th e rw o r d s , “[g ]e n e r a l-No. 09- 60272

SeeM I SS . C O D E ANN . §§ 23 -15-2 99(3), 23 -15-3 09(1 ), 23 -15-3 59(3), 23 -15-3 61(1 ), 23 -15- 4 (c ontinu ed
.. .) 7 ly , Pul l m an a b s te n tio n is a p p r o p r ia te o n lyw h e n th e r e is a n is s u e o f u n c e r ta in
s ta te la w t h a t is fa ir lys u b je c t to a n in te r p r e ta tio n [b ya s ta te c o u r t] w h ic h w ill
r e n d e r u n n e c e s s a r y o rs u b s ta n tia llym o d ify th e fe d e r a l co n s tit u tio n a l q u e s tio n .” B a ra n v. Po rt of B ea u m o n t Na v . D ist. , 5 7 F .3d 4 3 6 , 4 4 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). Pul l m an a b s t e n t io n is a p p r o p r ia t e h e r e . M o o r e c h a ll e n g e s th e S e c r e t a r y ’s
o f f i c i alac t i o ns on fe de r alco ns t i t ut i o nalgr o unds
. H e a l l e ge s t hatb y e nf o r c i ng t h e 5 : 00 p. m . d ead l i n e w i t h ou tex press d i rect i on f rom t h e l egi sl ature, t h e Secret ary dev i sed h i s ow n m an n er of app oi n t i n g presi den t i alel ect ors, i n vi ol ati on of Art i c l e I I
. As a r e s ul t , M o o r e c l ai m s , hi s Fi r s ta nd Fo u rt e e nt h Am e ndm e nt
r i ght s t o po l i t i c alpa r t i c i pa t i o n wer e v i o l at e d. M o r e o ve r , t he e xi s t e nc e o f a fe de r alc o ns t i t ut i o nalq ue s t i o n i s e nt i r e l y c o nt i n gen ton an un resol ved i n t erpret ati on of M i ssi ssi pp il aw . Th e Secret ary argue s t hatb y c l o s i ng hi s o f f i c e a t5: 00 p. m . he w as notcr e at i ng e l e c t i o n r ul e s , b ut
m e r e lyfo llo w in g th e e x is tin gla w s e n a c te d b yth e le g is la tu r e . H e p o in ts to p r o v isio n s o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e th a t p ro v id e fo r re g u la r o ffi ce h o u rs . A llsta te off i c e s , f o re xa m pl e , a r e r e qui r e d t o o pe r at e be t w e e n 8: 00 a. m . and 5: 00 p. m . , a nd th e S e c r e ta r yis re q u ir e d to o p e r a te e ig h t h o u r s e a c h w e e k d a y . S eeM IS S
. C ODE A NN . §§ 25

- 1- 98, 7

- 3- 3. I n t h e Secret ary’ s vi ew , t h en , he d i d n otadd t o, or even i nt e r pr e t , t he s i xt y- da y de ad l i ne i n § 23

- 15

- 78 5( 2) , butra t he rco m pl i e d wi t h t he
s tr ic t le tt e ro f th r e e in te r r e la te d s ta te s ta tu te s . M o o r e c o nt e nds t hat , t o t he c o nt r ar y, b e c aus e § 2 3- 15

- 78 5( 2) do e s no tc o nta in its o w n m e n tion o f a clo sin g tim e , th e S e cr e ta ry w a s r e q u ire d to k e e p h is o ff i c e ope n unt i lm i dni ghton Sep t e m be r5. M o o r e poi nt s outt hata num be rof o t herM i ss i ss i ppiel ec t i on s t at ut es do m ent i on 5: 00 p. m . f i l i ng deadl i nes and t hat presi den t i alabsen t ee bal l ot s hav e a l ater r e cei pt dead l i n e t h an do ball ot s f or ot h er of f i ces. 4No. 09- 60272

(...continu ed) 4 721 (3), 2 3-15 -807 (e), 2 3-15 -637
. 8 T h e qu est i on of

st ate l aw here i s atl east
SS and per haps e ven m or e t han

SS “fa ir lys u b je c t” t o th e S e c r e ta r y ’ s u n d e r s ta n d in g . W e a b s ta in fr o m d e c id in gth is qu est i on of

st ate l aw prem aturel y, how ever, becau se an a u t h ori t ative an sw er f r o m t he M i s s i s s i ppic o ur t s i n t he Se c r e t ar y’ s fav o rw o ul d al s o di s po s e of a ny fe dera lcon sti tu ti on a lqu estion
. W e th ere fore rem a n d the con sti tu tion a lcl a i m to t he di s t r i c tc o ur ta nd u r ge i t , l i ke w i s e , t o c o ns i de rw he t he rt o a bs t ai n.
I V. M oore c l ai m s he i s enti t l ed to cost s and fees un der rul e 4( d), w h i ch req u i r e s c e r t a i n d e fe n d a n t s , u p o n r e q u e s t , t o wa i v e s e r v i c e , an d w hi c h a l l o ws pl ai n t i f fs t o cover exp en ses rel ated t o ser vi ce i f t h e defen da n tdoes not w ai ve. The di s t r i c tc o ur tf

o und t hatM o o r e ’ s m o t i o n f o rc o s t s a nd f

e e s w as w i t h out
m eri t
. W e agree. R u l e 4’ s m an da t ory w ai ver provi si on s ap pl y on l y t o “ [ a] n i n di vi du al , cor p o r a tio n , o r a s s o c ia tio n th a t is s u b je c t t o s e r v ic e u n d e rR u le 4 (e ), (f), o r(h ).” F ED . R. C IV . P
. 4( d)( 1)

. Stat e governm en t s, m u n i ci pa lcor porati on s, an d “ot h er s t at e - c r e at e d g o ve r nm e nt alo r ga ni z at i o n[ s ] , ” al o ng w i t h t he fe de r alg o ve r nm e nt
an d f orei gn soverei gn s, are n otsubj ectt o m an da t ory w ai ver. A s t h e 199 3 A dv i sory C om m i t t ee N ot e t o rul e 4( d) exp l ai n s:
T h e U n i t ed S t ates i s not exp ect ed to w ai ve servi ce f o r th e reason t hati t s m ai lr e c e i vi ng fac i l i t i e s a r e i n ad e qua t e t o a s s ur e t hatt he no t i c e i s a c t ual l y r e c e i ve d b y t he c o r r e c tpe r s o n i n t he D e pa r t m e nt of Ju st i ce. Th e sam e pri n ci pl e i s app l i ed to agen ci es, cor porati on s, a n d o ffic e r s o f th e U n ite d S ta te s a n d t o o th e rg o v e r n m e n ts a n d e n titie s s u b je c t t o s e r v ic e u n d e r s u b d iv is io n (j). M o r e o v e r , th e r e a r e p o li cy rea s o ns w hy go ve r nm e nt ale nt i t i e s s ho ul d no tb e c o nf r o nt ed w i t h t h e potenti alf

or beari n g cost s of servi ce i n cases i n w h i ch theyNo. 09- 60272

Th e parti es plac ed gre at empha sis onth e holdingin Wil l v. Mic higa n De p’t of State 5 Polic e , 49 1 U
. S

. 5 8 ( 1 9 8 9) th at , f o r th e p urp o s e s o f a 4 2 U
. S

. C

. § 1 9 8 3 ac ti o n f o rmon ey damages, “asuit a gainst a state official in his or h er official c apacityis a suit again st th e offici al’ s offic e,” and also on the dict umth at “a state offici al inhis or her official capacity, when sued for inj unctive relief, woul d bea personunder § 1 983 .” Wi ll , 49 1 U .S. at71 , 71 n .10. This empha sis on Wi ll

is misplac ed. Th e question hereis no tabo utt he definitio n of a“per son” under § 19 83, butratherth e definitionof an “individual” under rule4. 9 u ltim a te lyp r e v a il.
M oo r e a r gues t hatt he Sec r et ar y, ev en w hen sue d i n hi s of f i c i alc apac i t y, shou l d be con si dered a n “ i n di vi du al ” forp u rposes of rul e 4’ s m an da t ory w ai ver p r o v i s i o n . H e i s i n c o r r e c t
. The Advisory Committee Note expressly states that the rationale for shiel ding the U ni t ed States f rom the mandatory waiver-of- service p rovision s als o ap p liestoits“agencies , corpora ti on s, an dof fic er s”an ds imilarly “to othergovernm entsan dentitie s subject to s ervic e unders ubdivis ion( j) .” Althou gh
neith erth e rulenorth e Advis ory C om mitt eenot e atte mp tstodef inew hichs tat e “entiti es” are similarly shielded from the mandatorywaiv er p rovisions, the most
reas on able r eading of

rule4 aff

or d s st ateof

fic er s facing of

ficial c ap acity suitsth e s ame c on sider atio n give n tof eder al off

ic er s in th e s amep os itio n. N o ri s M o o r e ’ s r e l i anc e o n Fi r s tCi r cui tc as e l aw pe r s uas i ve . I n t w o i nst an ces, t h at ci rcui th el d that st ate of f i ci al s s u ed i n t h ei r i n di vi du alcapaci t i es shou l d receive process as i n di vi du al s un der rul e 4 ( e) ( an d i t s predecessor) rat h er th a n a s s ta te g o v e r n m e n t e n tit ie s u n d e rru le 4 (j). S ee E c hev arr i a- G onz al e s v. G on zal es- C h ap el , 8 4 9 F .2 d 2 4 ( 1 s t C ir . 1 9 8 8 ); C a iss e v . D u B o is , 346 F
. 3d 213 ( 1st C i r. 200 3)

. N ei t h er E ch ev a rr ianor C ais ee , h ow ev er, a d d ress ed w h eth er a state
o f f i c i alw as s ubj e c tt o m and at o r y w aive ro bl i ga t i o ns und er r ul e 4 ( d) ; i ns t e ad , b o th ca se s c o n ce rn e d w h e th e r p la in tiffs h a d m a d e ad eq u a te serv i ce on state of f i ci aldefen da n t s. For t h e reason st ated a bove, w e di sagree w i t h t h e F i rst Ci r c ui t ’ s r e ad i n g of

r ul e 4 , a tl e as ti ns o fara s t he Fi r s tCi r c ui t ’ s r e as o ni ng sub j ect s s t ate of

f i cers t o t h e m an da t ory w ai ver provi si on s of t h e rul e. 5 Anum berof

ot herc our t s have hel d t hats t at e o f f i c er s sue d i n t hei rof

f i c i alNo. 09- 60272

See , e. g. , Lib ertarian Part y v. Dardenne , 20 09 WL79 014 9, at *5(M.D. La . Mar. 24, 6 2 0 0 9); Mackv. F

ox , 2 0 0 8 WL 4 8 3 2 9 9 5 , at *3(M.D .N .C

. Nov . 4 , 2 0 0 8); Chap ma n v. N. Y. State Di v. f or You th , 2 2 7F .R .D. 1 7 5 , 1 7 9 -8 0(N. D.N .Y 2 0 0 5); Randall v. Crist , 20 05 WL 597 967 8, at *2 (N .D. Fla
. Nov . 1 , 2 0 0 5); Gay nor v . Ma rt in , 77F. Su pp . 2d27 2 , 2 8 2 (D. C onn . 1 9 9 9); Ban

erj ee v. Rober ts , 6 4 1 F
. Supp . 1 0 9 3(D. C onn . 1 9 8 6). 10 capa ci t i es are sub j ectt o ser vi ce un der rul e 4(j ) or i t s predecessor
. W e j oi n t h em 6 i n s ay i ng t hata stat e of f i c i als ue d i n hi s o f

f i c i alc ap ac i t y i s no ts ubj e c tt o t he
m an da t ory w ai ver- of

- servi ce provi si on s of ru l e 4 ( d). T h u s, w e a f f i rm t h e di sm i ssalof M oore’ s m ot i on f

or c ost s and fees. Fort he r e as on s exp l ai ne d, t he j udg m e nti s AFF I RM ED i n pa r ta nd R E V E R S E D an d R E M A N D E D i n pa rt.