Court Opinion

ID: 9914437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-01 16:06:05.343475+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:13:03.256947
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued December 28, 2023

                                       In The

                                Court of Appeals
                                      For The

                           First District of Texas
                              ————————————
                               NO. 01-22-00035-CV
                             ———————————
  RANYA KHANOYAN, ALAN VERA, DAVID LUGO, TOM S. RAMSEY
              AND R. JACK CAGLE, Appellant
                                          V.
LINA HILDALGO, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COUNTY JUDGE
   OF HARRIS COUNTY, AND HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, Appellee

                    On Appeal from the 270th District Court
                             Harris County, Texas
                       Trial Court Case No. 2021-75043

                           MEMORANDUM OPINION

      This case is an appeal from the trial court’s order granting appellees’ plea to

the jurisdiction and dismissing appellants’ claims in a case seeking declaratory and

injunctive relief relative to the 2022 election. In the underlying case, the appellants
asserted that a redistricting plan adopted by the Harris County Commissioners

Court disenfranchised voters by transferring them from precincts that held

elections in 2022 to precincts that held elections next in 2024. The appellants

sought declarations that would support their contentions and an injunction to

prevent the implementation of the adopted redistricting plan for the 2022 election.

      We informed the parties that the appeal appeared to be moot because the

2022 elections were held on November 8, 2022. See Heckman v. Williamson Cty.,

369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 2012) (“A case becomes moot if, since the time of

filing, there has ceased to exist a justiciable controversy between the parties—that

is, if the issues presented are no longer ‘live,’ or if the parties lack a legally

cognizable interest in the outcome.”). We notified the parties of our intent to

dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction and afforded them more than ten days to

demonstrate why the appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The

appellants did not respond; the appellees responded in support of the Court’s intent

to dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

      Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3; Heckman, 369 S.W.3d at 162. All pending motions are dismissed.

                                             Peter Kelly
                                             Justice

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Landau, and Farris.
                                         2