Opinion ID: 783981
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: These appeals are moot.

Text: 11 Mootness can be characterized as the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of the litigation (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness). Cook Inlet Treaty Tribes v. Shalala, 166 F.3d 986, 989 (9th Cir.1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). Mootness is a jurisdictional issue, and federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear a case that is moot, that is, where no actual or live controversy exists. Id. If there is no longer a possibility that an appellant can obtain relief for his claim, that claim is moot and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Ruvalcaba v. City of L.A., 167 F.3d 514, 521 (9th Cir.1999). 12 The Chief Justice's Orders and the BRP are no longer in effect. Funds are being provided for indigent defense. Indigent defense providers are being paid, arraignments are being completed, lawyers are being appointed for indigent criminal defendants and others eligible for appointed counsel, and the Oregon courts are taking pleas. 1 13 Where the activities sought to be enjoined already have occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot, and must be dismissed. Bernhardt v. County of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 871 (9th Cir.2002) (citing Seven Words LLC v. Network Solutions, 260 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir.2001)). Plaintiffs filed suit to jump-start the criminal proceedings that the BRP had suspended. Those proceedings, however, now are underway, and we cannot undo their past, but completed, suspension. 14 Indeed, we are unable to provide any relief to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs did not seek money damages below; they requested only (1) a declaration that the BRP and the administrative Orders were unconstitutional and void, (2) costs and fees, and (3) any other relief the court deemed appropriate. We cannot undo in the context of this action whatever injury the criminally charged Plaintiffs may have suffered by the delay in their arraignments and in the appointment of counsel. Further, the existence of a claim for attorney fees is not sufficient to revive an otherwise moot action. Cammermeyer v. Perry, 97 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir.1996). 15 For these reasons, the consolidated cases are moot. We are obliged to dismiss the appeals unless some exception to the mootness doctrine applies. 16