Opinion ID: 1210694
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Barton's Separate Lawsuit

Text: The district court dismissed Barton's separate suit, challenging the Forest Service's authority to regulate mining under the NFMA, as moot because he failed to allege actual or potential injury. We agree. Mootness is a question of law reviewed de novo. Barter Fair v. Jackson County, 372 F.3d 1128, 1133 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Advocacy Ctr. v. Mink, 322 F.3d 1101, 1116 (9th Cir.2003)). The basic question in determining mootness is whether there is a present controversy as to which effective relief can be granted. Serena v. Mock, 547 F.3d 1051, 1053 (9th Cir.2008) (quoting Feldman v. Bomar, 518 F.3d 637, 642 (9th Cir.2008)). A case becomes moot whenever it loses its character as a present, live controversy of the kind that must exist if we are to avoid advisory opinions on abstract propositions of law. The question is not whether the precise relief sought at the time ... [the case] was filed is still available. The question is whether there can be any effective relief. Earth Island Inst. v. United States Forest Serv., 442 F.3d 1147, 1157 (9th Cir.2006) (citing Cantrell v. City of Long Beach, 241 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2001), abrogated on other grounds by Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., ___ U.S. ____, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). Barton contends that because the Forest Service's current interpretation of MM-1 could change, his suit falls within the exception to the mootness doctrine reserved for voluntary cessation of unlawful activity. See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envt'l Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 192, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). Barton, however, does not dispute that the Forest Service's current policy, as reflected in the February 2002 memorandum to the Forest Rangers, is not to require a plan of operations for mining activities unless such a plan would be required under § 228.4(a). Indeed, although the Forest Service does not dispute that it may change its policy, the record does not indicate that the Forest Service has any intention of changing its interpretation of MM-1 to encompass mining activity beyond that suggested by its current interpretation. Moreover, there is no need, in light of our determination to affirm the district court's judgment in favor of the Forest Service  which ultimately inheres to the benefit of Barton  to address the merits of Barton's separate claims. In sum, the district court did not err in dismissing as moot Barton's separate suit, and we therefore affirm the court's ruling on this issue.