Opinion ID: 181836
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trust Fund Claims

Text: When this lawsuit was filed, appellants were able to pursue their Trust Fund claims under 31 U.S.C. § 1321 because they were federal inmates and beneficiaries of the Trust Fund. At all times during the litigation before the District Court, at least one of the named appellants remained in BOP custody. However, all three appellants have since been released from incarceration. Appellant Keith Maydak was released from BOP custody in 2005; appellant Gregory Smith was released in November 2009; and appellant Paul Lee was released in April 2010. We must, therefore, first address whether this court still retains jurisdiction over the Trust Fund claims. The problem here is that appellants' claims against the Trust Fund were rendered moot once they left prison. Under trust law, claims for redress of a prior breach of trust can only be pursued by beneficiaries of the trust. See, e.g., RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TRUSTS §§ 199-200 (1959). Since federal prison inmates are the sole beneficiaries of the Trust Fund, a claim for reimbursements to the Fund can only be pursued by a current federal inmate. All three appellants have been released from incarceration. As a result of their changed circumstances, their Trust Fund claims are now moot. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975) (per curiam) (parole applicant's challenge to parole board procedures moot once he gained complete release); DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 94 S.Ct. 1704, 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974) (per curiam) (law student's challenge to school's affirmative action program moot due to his pending graduation); Flynt v. Weinberger, 762 F.2d 134 (D.C.Cir.1985) (per curiam) (publisher's suit challenging ban of press coverage of invasion of Grenada rendered moot when press ban was lifted two days after complaint was filed). There is no exception to an application of the mootness doctrine in this case, for the matter is not capable of repetition, yet evading review. The Court's decision in Bradford is instructive. In that case, Bradford sued members of the North Carolina Board of Parole, claiming that they were obligated to accord him certain procedural rights in considering his eligibility for parole. The district court refused to certify the case as a class action and dismissed the complaint. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, Bradford's temporary parole had ripened into a complete release from supervision. The Court noted that, [f]rom that date forward it [was] plain that [Bradford had] no interest whatever in the procedures followed by [the Board of Parole] in granting parole. 423 U.S. at 148, 96 S.Ct. 347. Bradford argued that his case should not be dismissed as moot, because it fit within the capable of repetition, yet evading review exception to mootness. The Court rejected this argument, saying: [I]n the absence of a class action, the capable of repetition, yet evading review doctrine [is] limited to the situation where two elements combine[]:(1) the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subjected to the same action again. The instant case, not a class action, clearly does not satisfy the latter element. While [the members of the Board of Parole] will continue to administer the North Carolina parole system with respect to those who at any given moment are subject to their jurisdiction, there is no demonstrated probability that [Bradford] will again be among that number. Id. at 149, 96 S.Ct. 347. The same principles apply here with respect to appellants' Trust Fund claims. The live dispute between the appellants and the Government ended when appellants were no longer in the custody of BOP. Appellants seek to avoid this result by suggesting that, notwithstanding their release from prison, they continue to have standing to pursue their Trust Fund claims. In advancing this position, appellants rely primarily on the Court's decision in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000). In Friends of the Earth, the plaintiffs sued under the citizen suit provisions of the Clean Water Act to enjoin the defendant's violation of the statute and to require the defendant to pay a civil penalty to the government. The district court determined that injunctive relief was inappropriate, because the defendant's violations of the statute had ceased after litigation commenced. However, the court assessed a civil penalty against the defendant to forestall future violations. The court of appeals reversed the imposition of the fine, holding that the case was moot once the defendant fully complied with the terms of the statute. It reasoned that all elements of Article III standing must exist throughout litigation and that the only remedy available after the defendant's violations had ceased  civil penalties payable to the government  did not redress any injury to the plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Court of Appeals confused mootness with standing. Id. at 189, 120 S.Ct. 693. . . . . The Friends of the Earth opinion follows easily from earlier decisions holding that if a plaintiff challenges both a specific action and the policy that underlies that action, the challenge to the policy is not necessarily mooted merely because the challenge to the particular action is moot. For example, in Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115 [94 S.Ct. 1694, 40 L.Ed.2d 1] (1974), employers sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent New Jersey from granting state welfare benefits to striking workers on the ground that the state's actions violated federal labor law. The Court held that because the strike that prompted the suit ended before the case was resolved, the employer's request for an injunction preventing payment of welfare benefits during the strike was moot. However, the Court also held that the employer's request for declaratory relief was not moot, because the challenged governmental action had not ceased and the employer's relationship with the union would be continually affected by the fixed and definite state policy of giving welfare benefits to strikers. Id. at 122-24, 94 S.Ct. 1694. HARRY T. EDWARDS & LINDA A. ELLIOTT, FEDERAL STANDARDS OF REVIEWREVIEW OF DISTRICT COURT DECISIONS AND AGENCY ACTIONS 115-16 (2007). Friends of the Earth and Super Tire plainly are inapposite here. Even though the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory relief in Friends of the Earth and injunctive relief in Super Tire were rendered moot during the course of litigation, the plaintiffs in those cases continued to have sufficient interests and the necessary standing going forward to pursue their claims for civil penalties and declaratory relief, respectively. The appellants in this case have no such continuing interests or standing. Two decisions issued by the Supreme Court are illustrative in highlighting the problem that appellants face in this case. The first is the Court's recent decision in Summers v. Earth Island Institute, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1142, 173 L.Ed.2d 1 (2009). In that case, the plaintiffs were several environmental protection organizations. When the lawsuit was filed in 2003, the plaintiffs challenged the United States Forest Service's failure to apply its usual notice-and-comment procedures to the approval of the so-called Burnt Ridge Project. The plaintiffs also challenged the underlying federal Forest Service regulation exempting certain federal land sales from the notice-and-comment requirement generally applied to significant land management decisions. After the District Court issued a preliminary injunction, the parties settled their dispute over the Burnt Ridge Project. The plaintiffs then sought to continue pursuit of their challenge to the agency's regulation. The Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing to pursue this claim, because a party who sues to challenge a certain action but then settles the claim does not retain[] standing to challenge the basis for that action (here, the regulation in the abstract), apart from any concrete application that threatens imminent harm to his interests. Id. at 1150. The second case worth noting is the Court's decision in DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 94 S.Ct. 1704, 40 L.Ed.2d 164 (1974) (per curiam). In that case, a prospective law student brought suit against the University of Washington Law School, seeking an injunction granting him admission and challenging the school's affirmative action policy that allegedly prevented his admission. The district court granted the preliminary injunction and DeFunis enrolled in law school. By the time the case reached the Supreme Court, however, DeFunis had already entered his last year of law school and was about to graduate. Id. at 315, 94 S.Ct. 1704. The Supreme Court found that his claim for injunctive relief had been mooted by his impending graduation, and that, as a result, he no longer had a personal interest sufficient to support standing to challenge the underlying admissions policy. Id. at 319-20, 94 S.Ct. 1704. When the complaint in the instant case was filed, the appellants were federal prison inmates and, as such, had a clear and concrete personal interest in the management of the Trust Fund. Appellants' claims alleged an actual injury  namely, decreased inmate benefits due to the diminished resources of the Trust Fund  that was caused by BOP's improper use of Trust Fund monies and that could be redressed by BOP's reimbursement of the misappropriated funds. Standing was clear. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (explaining the essential requirements of injury, causation, and redressability necessary to support Article III standing). Following appellants' release from BOP custody, however, they were no longer beneficiaries of the Trust Fund and, therefore, held no continuing personal interest in future disbursements from the Fund. Their Trust Fund claims are thus moot, and they have no standing to pursue the matter further. Summers and DeFunis are controlling. During oral argument before this court, Amici maintained that appellants retained standing based on some individual de minimis claims for photo voucher reimbursements and overpayments caused by BOP's misuse of the Trust Fund monies. These claims come too late and are thus forfeited. Kingman Park Civic Ass'n v. Williams, 348 F.3d 1033, 1043 (D.C.Cir.2003) (The general presumption against deciding claims not raised below is particularly strong where, as here, the claim turns upon factual questions not yet passed upon by the district court.). Neither the appellants' amended complaint nor their motion to further amend their complaint raise these de minimis claims, a fact Amici effectively conceded in its reply brief to this court. See Reply Br. of Appointed Amicus Curiae in Supp. of Appellants at 20 (urging remand so that plaintiffs can file an amended complaint seeking individual reimbursement). In fact, appellants only mentioned these de minimis claims in the District Court in connection with out-of-pocket expenses for Privacy Act damages relief, not as grounds for individual standing on Trust Fund claims. See Pls.' Memo. in Opp. to the Defs.' Mot. for Summ. J. 9, 15-16, reprinted in App. 286, 292-93. Since appellants no longer have standing to pursue their Trust Fund claims, we need not address the questions of whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying appellants' request for nationwide discovery; motion for leave to file supplemental pleadings identifying additional instances of Fund misuse; and motion to join the Trust Fund as a plaintiff, appoint a receiver for the Trust Fund, and appoint counsel for the Trust Fund.