Opinion ID: 498211
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: COVERDELL'S CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST McLAUGHLIN

Text: 44
45 Coverdell's Amended and Supplemental Complaint requested that the lower court enjoin DSHS and McLaughlin from seizing children of Alice Coverdell and other parents without notice and an opportunity for hearing and an opportunity for parent and child to defend their constitutionally protected interest in their parent-child relationship under the circumstances of this case in which (a) child and mother are confined in their normal relationship at hospital; and (b) [t]here is no allegation supported by probable cause that the child is being harmed by the mother.... The district court concluded that Coverdell's request for injunctive relief against DSHS was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Coverdell does not challenge this ruling on appeal. 46 The district court further ruled that Coverdell's claim for injunctive relief against McLaughlin was moot: [T]he issue of McLaughlin's seizing of plaintiff's child while plaintiff is in the hospital and without probable cause to believe the mother is endangering the child, without prior notice, has become moot. There is no threat of immediate, irreparable injury. Accordingly, the court ordered dismissal of the claim for injunctive relief. 47 On appeal, Coverdell argues that injunctive relief is appropriate because she is still of child-bearing age and McLaughlin is still employed by DSHS. Coverdell asserts that McLaughlin was instrumental in having Christina's older sibling seized from a hospital in Oregon, and that Coverdell has a continuing concern ... that her children would be taken from her at the hospital. 48 McLaughlin responds that dismissal of Coverdell's claim for injunctive relief was proper because Coverdell made no showing of immediate, irreparable injury sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction.
49 We apply a de novo standard of review to the district court's determination that an action or claim is moot. Sample v. Johnson, 771 F.2d 1335, 1338 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1019, 106 S.Ct. 1206, 89 L.Ed.2d 319 (1986).
50 Article III of the Constitution limits the power of federal courts to deciding 'cases' and 'controversies.'  Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 61, 106 S.Ct. 1697, 1703, 90 L.Ed.2d 48 (1986). A person's past exposure to alleged unlawful conduct is insufficient to establish a present case or controversy entitling him to injunctive relief. O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495, 94 S.Ct. 669, 676, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974). Rather, to establish a present case or controversy, plaintiff must demonstrate the likelihood of similar injury in the future. LaDuke v. Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1324 (9th Cir.1985) (discussing City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)), modified, 796 F.2d 309 (9th Cir.1986). Plaintiff must show that there is a credible threat that she will again be subject to the particular injury against which injunctive relief is sought. Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 355 n. 3, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1857 n. 3, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983). A mere physical or theoretical possibility that the challenged conduct will again injure the plaintiff is insufficient to establish a present case or controversy. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 1183, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982). 51 Moreover, plaintiff's showing must be objective in character; plaintiff's mere attestation that she fears a repetition of the challenged conduct is insufficient to show a likelihood of recurrence. Sample, 771 F.2d at 1343 (citing Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 402-03, 95 S.Ct. 2330, 2334-35, 45 L.Ed.2d 272 (1975)). In short, if there is no objectively demonstrable basis for concluding that any future recurrence of the challenged conduct will affect the plaintiff, there is no present case or controversy. Id. at 1340. See, e.g., Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 96 S.Ct. 598, 46 L.Ed.2d 561 (1976) (no more than hypothetical possibility that plaintiffs' individual rights would be violated by unconstitutional police action in future).
52 A de novo review of the record in this case reveals no evidence to support Coverdell's subjective concern that McLaughlin is likely, at some future time, to seize any child of Coverdell from the hospital. Faced with defendants' assertion that Coverdell's claim for injunctive relief was moot, Coverdell, as the plaintiff, bore the burden of demonstrating the existence of a present case or controversy. See Sample, 771 F.2d at 1342. Coverdell, however, presented no evidence to satisfy her burden. She presented no evidence that she was pregnant, that she anticipated becoming pregnant, that she was still capable of bearing children, that she still resided within McLaughlin's service region, or that McLaughlin had taken any action or made any statement to suggest that Coverdell's newborn children might be seized in the future. 53 Coverdell's brief on appeal asserts that McLaughlin has been in contact with every DSHS office in any geographic area that Mrs. Coverdell has resided, and that McLaughlin was instrumental in having Mrs. Coverdell's [older] child seized from the hospital in La Grande, Oregon. These assertions, however, find no support in the evidence; they merely restate allegations contained in Coverdell's unverified Amended and Supplemental Complaint. 54 The only evidence bearing on the likelihood that McLaughlin will seize another Coverdell child from the hospital is that presented by McLaughlin herself. The affidavit she presented to the district court states that since giving birth to Christina, Coverdell has borne two more children but that McLaughlin removed neither of those children from Coverdell's custody at the hospital. 55 Coverdell's claim for injunctive relief rests on her unsupported and subjective continuing concern that future children will be taken from her at the hospital. We have no reason to doubt the genuineness of that concern. As a matter of law, however, Coverdell's subjective concern is insufficient to show a reasonable likelihood that she will again be the victim of allegedly unlawful conduct. Sample, 771 F.2d at 1343. 56 In summary, Coverdell's claim for injunctive relief against McLaughlin presents no current case or controversy. Under Article III of the Constitution, the district court had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. The court, therefore, acted properly in dismissing the claim. See Demarest v. United States, 718 F.2d 964, 965 (9th Cir.1983) (dismissal is the appropriate disposition if subject matter jurisdiction is absent), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 950, 104 S.Ct. 2150, 80 L.Ed.2d 536 (1984). 57