Court Opinion

ID: 9949001
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 16:02:01.387833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:27.892917
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-4057            Document: 010111012306   Date Filed: 03/08/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                    FILED
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                           UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       Tenth Circuit

                                 FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         March 8, 2024
                             _________________________________
                                                                            Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                                Clerk of Court
  DAWN HEPIKIYA MEDINA; JUSTIN
  HORTON; MADELAINE THOMPSON;
  LUKE MELVIN LEWIS; MARCOS
  HERNANDEZ; DENISE ANN BEIERLE,
  on behalf of themselves and all others
  similarly situated,

         Plaintiffs - Appellants,

  v.                                                            No. 23-4057
                                                        (D.C. No. 4:21-CV-00102-DN)
  THE HONORABLE ANNE MARIE                                        (D. Utah)
  MCIFF ALLEN; THE HONORABLE
  JEREMIAH HUMES; THE
  HONORABLE CHRISTINE JOHNSON;
  THE HONORABLE THOMAS LOW;
  THE HONORABLE MATTHEW BELL,
  in their official capacities,

         Defendants - Appellees.

  ------------------------------

  AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
  FOUNDATION; AMERICAN CIVIL
  LIBERTIES UNION OF UTAH,

         Amici Curiae.
                             _________________________________

                                     ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

        *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
 ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral
Appellate Case: 23-4057     Document: 010111012306         Date Filed: 03/08/2024     Page: 2

                          _________________________________

 Before PHILLIPS, MORITZ, and EID, Circuit Judges.
                    _________________________________

        This putative class action asserts that Utah’s bail procedures violate the Sixth

 and Fourteenth Amendments. But because the claims at issue on appeal are being

 asserted by an uncertified class, we lack appellate jurisdiction. For the same reason,

 the district court also lacked jurisdiction over the merits of these claims. We

 therefore dismiss the appeal, vacate the district court’s merits rulings, and remand for

 the district court to consider plaintiffs’ still-pending motion to certify a class and for

 further proceedings as necessary.

                                        Background

        Dawn Medina, Justin Horton, Madelaine Thompson, Luke Lewis, Marcos

 Hernandez, and Denise Beierle—the named plaintiffs—challenge Utah’s bail system

 on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated. The operative second

 amended complaint alleges that the named plaintiffs were each held in pretrial

 custody from the date of their warrantless arrests until at least the date of their initial

 appearances solely because they could not afford to pay their bail. It further alleges

 that judicial officers set bail without considering an arrestee’s ability to pay, without

 providing notice to the arrestee or allowing them to participate, and without

 appointing counsel to the arrestee. And according to the complaint, the initial

 estoppel. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a);
 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
                                              2
Appellate Case: 23-4057       Document: 010111012306       Date Filed: 03/08/2024     Page: 3

 appearance itself is also constitutionally deficient because counsel is not appointed

 until during that hearing.

        The result of this system, the complaint alleges, is that “hundreds of people are

 detained in county jails every day solely because they cannot afford to purchase their

 liberty.” App. vol. 2, 413. The complaint accordingly asserts Sixth and Fourteenth

 Amendment claims for declaratory relief against various Utah magistrates who make

 initial bail determinations and preside over initial appearances. And because the

 named plaintiffs seek to represent a class, they also sought class certification.

        Defendants moved to dismiss on various grounds. Ruling on that motion, the

 district court began by considering its jurisdiction. As relevant here, it first ruled that

 although the named plaintiffs had standing to pursue their claims for retrospective

 declaratory relief, such claims were barred by sovereign immunity. Next, the district

 court concluded that the named plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue prospective

 declaratory relief because they had no continuing injury from their since-resolved

 pretrial detentions and because any future pretrial detentions were “not a current

 threat.” Id. at 546. However, the district court reasoned that the unnamed class

 members did have standing to pursue such prospective relief—but it did not certify

 the class or otherwise rule on the motion to certify.1

        1
         The district court also concluded, among other things, that recent changes to
 Utah’s bail system did not moot the case and that the Ex parte Young exception to
 sovereign immunity permitted the class members’ claim for prospective declaratory
 relief.
                                              3
Appellate Case: 23-4057      Document: 010111012306       Date Filed: 03/08/2024      Page: 4

        Turning to the merits, the district court concluded that Utah’s bail system

 satisfied procedural due process and that it was subject to and satisfied rational-basis

 review for purposes of substantive due process and equal protection. The district

 court also concluded that there was no Sixth Amendment violation because the right

 to counsel attaches at the initial appearance, not before, and because the initial setting

 of bail is not a critical stage of a case. It accordingly dismissed the case, and

 plaintiffs filed this appeal.

                                         Analysis

        Plaintiffs’ opening brief focuses entirely on the district court’s merits rulings.

 But defendants assert in response that we cannot reach the merits because we lack

 jurisdiction over claims being asserted only by an uncertified class. Plaintiffs dispute

 this argument in their reply brief, but they alternatively suggest that if we lack

 jurisdiction, then the district court did as well. Because jurisdiction is a determinative

 threshold consideration that we are not at liberty to presume, we begin—and

 ultimately end—there. See Clinton v. Sec. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 63 F.4th 1264, 1273

 (10th Cir. 2023) (noting “duty to examine our own jurisdiction” (quoting Amazon,

 Inc. v. Dirt Camp, Inc., 273 F.3d 1271, 1274 (10th Cir. 2001))); Rio Grande Found.

 v. City of Santa Fe, 7 F.4th 956, 959 (10th Cir. 2021) (noting “duty to assure

 ourselves of the district court’s subject-matter jurisdiction” (quoting Planned

 Parenthood of Kan. v. Andersen, 882 F.3d 1205, 1211 (10th Cir. 2018))).

        Article III of the United States Constitution limits federal judicial power to

 “[c]ases” and “[c]ontroversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. As relevant here, the case-

                                             4
Appellate Case: 23-4057    Document: 010111012306         Date Filed: 03/08/2024      Page: 5

 or-controversy limitation ensures that federal courts decide only questions presented

 in a true adversarial context that are “capable of resolution through the judicial

 process.” U.S. Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 395–96 (1980) (quoting

 Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83, 95 (1968)). In practical terms, courts typically analyze

 the case-or-controversy requirement through the doctrines of standing and mootness:

 “[s]tanding concerns whether a plaintiff’s action qualifies as a case or controversy

 when it is filed; mootness ensures it remains one at the time a court renders [a]

 decision.” Rio Grande Found. v. Oliver, 57 F.4th 1147, 1159–60 (10th Cir. 2023)

 (quoting Brown v. Buhman, 822 F.3d 1151, 1163 (10th Cir. 2016)). Both doctrines,

 and mootness in particular, ensure that litigants have a personal stake in the outcome

 of the proceedings, such that the dispute is a live case or controversy “capable of

 judicial resolution.” Geraghty, 445 U.S. at 396–97.

       Class actions involve unique mootness rules. See id. at 397–401. First,

 “mootness of the named plaintiff’s individual claim after a class has been duly

 certified does not render the action moot.” Id. at 397 (emphasis omitted). In Sosna v.

 Iowa, for instance, the Supreme Court explained that if the named plaintiff “had sued

 only on her own behalf,” her case would have been moot because while the action

 was pending, she satisfied the residency requirement she sought to challenge. 419

 U.S. 393, 399 (1975). But the named plaintiff had filed a class action, and the district

 court had certified the class. See id. Thus, “the class of unnamed persons described in

 the certification acquired a legal status separate from the interest asserted by [the

 named plaintiff].” Id.; see also County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 51

                                             5
Appellate Case: 23-4057     Document: 010111012306          Date Filed: 03/08/2024     Page: 6

 (1991) (“[B]y obtaining class certification, plaintiffs preserved the merits of the

 controversy for our review.”).

        Second, a “named plaintiff may litigate the class[-]certification issue despite

 loss of [their] personal stake in the outcome of the litigation.” Geraghty, 445 U.S. at

 398. If the class is eventually certified, the certification will relate back to the filing

 of the initial complaint so that the action as a whole remains live. See Sosna, 419

 U.S. at 402 n.11; Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 110 n.11 (1975) (explaining that

 class action was not moot even though it was unclear whether any named plaintiffs’

 claims were live at time of certification). If, on the other hand, certification is denied,

 a named plaintiff may litigate the issue of certification on appeal. See Geraghty, 445

 U.S. at 404.

        Here, the district court held that the named plaintiffs could not pursue

 prospective declaratory relief because they were no longer being detained and it was

 purely speculative that they would be arrested in the future and subjected, once again,

 to the allegedly unconstitutional bail proceedings. See Collins v. Daniels, 916 F.3d

 1302, 1314–15 (10th Cir. 2019) (noting that named plaintiff’s “claims for prospective

 relief [were] moot because she [wa]s no longer subject to pretrial supervision” and

 threat of being again subject to such supervision was speculative);2 cf. Sosna, 419

        2
          We described the litigation in Collins “as a putative class action on behalf of
 all New Mexico criminal defendants whose bail hearings have been or will be
 conducted using the [challenged rules].” 916 F.3d at 1310. But we did not mention
 class certification in any context—whether it had been sought, obtained, or denied.
 See id. at 1309–11. And when we held that none of the named plaintiffs had standing
 to pursue prospective relief, we did not mention or consider the standing of any
                                              6
Appellate Case: 23-4057     Document: 010111012306          Date Filed: 03/08/2024     Page: 7

 U.S. at 399–400 (explaining that it would be speculative to reason that named

 plaintiff herself would be subject again to challenged residency requirement). That

 left only the unnamed class members’ claims for prospective declaratory relief, but

 the district court never certified that class of unnamed individuals.

        This is a critical failure. In the absence of certification, the district court was

 not presented with a live case or controversy as to the merits of the claims; instead, it

 retained jurisdiction only over the certification motion. See Gayle v. Warden

 Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst., 838 F.3d 297, 303–05 (3d Cir. 2016) (holding that

 district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on merits of claims where named plaintiffs’

 claims were moot and class certification had been denied); cf. Sosna, 419 U.S. at 404

 (explaining that if denial of certification is reversed on appeal “and a class

 subsequently is properly certified, the merits of the class claim then may be

 adjudicated” (emphasis added)). And for us, on appeal, the Supreme Court has been

 clear that “[a] named plaintiff whose claim expires may not continue to press the

 appeal on the merits until a class has been properly certified.” Geraghty, 445 U.S. at

 404.

        We must therefore dismiss the appeal, as defendants urge in their response

 brief. However, we must also vacate the district court’s merits rulings for lack of

 unnamed class members. See id. at 1315. So even though defendants relied on Collins
 below to argue that even the unnamed members of the uncertified class lacked
 standing, Collins in fact says nothing about unnamed class members and is relevant
 only inasmuch as it supports the district court’s ruling on the named plaintiffs’
 inability to pursue prospective declaratory relief.
                                              7
Appellate Case: 23-4057     Document: 010111012306         Date Filed: 03/08/2024        Page: 8

 jurisdiction, as plaintiffs urge in their reply brief. And because the district court

 retains jurisdiction over the class-certification motion, we additionally remand for the

 district court to consider that issue and for further proceedings as necessary.

                                        Conclusion

        Because an uncertified class asserts the only claims at issue in this action, we

 lack appellate jurisdiction. And the district court’s jurisdiction over these claims

 extends only as far as the class-certification motion. We therefore vacate oral

 argument, dismiss the appeal, vacate the district court’s merits rulings, and remand

 for the district court to consider class certification and for further proceedings as

 required.

        As a final matter, we grant plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to supplement the

 appendix with their class-certification motions.

                                              Entered for the Court

                                              Nancy L. Moritz
                                              Circuit Judge

                                              8