Adam v. Oklahoma Law Enforcement Retirement Board

69 F. App'x 903

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: April 24, 2003
• Docket: 02-6246
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

O’BRIEN, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. RApp. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mickey D. Adam, other retired Oklahoma Highway Patrolmen, and some surviving spouses (“the Troopers”) appeal a decision of the district court dismissing their complaint under FED.R.CrvP. 12(b)(6) as barred by the statute of limitations. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2002), we conclude the issues raised are moot and dismiss the appeal. 1

On March 8, 2001, the Troopers filed suit against the Oklahoma Law Enforce ment Retirement Board and board members (“Board”), claiming the Board, in calculating the Troopers’ retirement benefits, violated their rights under the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions. The Troopers requested injunctive and declaratory relief. 2 When the Troopers were hired, prior to July 1, 1980, Oklahoma law provided that after twenty years of service they would be eligible to receive a retirement benefit, payable monthly, calculated against one-half of the prevailing annual base trooper salary. 3 On July 1,1980, an amendment to this provision took effect and applied to all troopers eligible for retirement after the date of enactment. 4 It altered the means of calculating the retirement benefit, effectively lowering the monthly benefit as compared to the pre-1980 method of calculation. The Troopers challenged the application of this amendment to their retirement benefits, which they claimed were vested before July 1, 1980. None of the Troopers had retired prior to July 1, 1980.

The district court concluded the Troopers’ cause of action arose on July 1, 1980, the effective date of the challenged amendment. Because the Troopers’ complaint was filed more than twenty years after this date, the district court dismissed the Troopers’ state and federal constitutional claims as time-barred under the statute of limitations contained in Okla Stat. tit. 12, § 95.

As a preliminary matter, the Board argues this case is moot because the relevant statutes were amended after the district court rendered its March 5, 2002 decision. We review the issue of mootness de novo. Faustin v. City and County of Denver, 268 F.3d 942, 947 (10th Cir.2001). “Mootness is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or controversy is a constitutional prerequisite to federal court jurisdiction.” McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 867 (10th Cir.1996) (citation omitted). See also Faustin, 268 F.3d at 947.

It has long been settled that a federal court has no authority to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it. For that reason, if an event occurs while a case is pending on appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed.

Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12, 113 S.Ct. 447, 121 L.Ed.2d 313 (1992) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

The Oklahoma Legislature amended Okla Stat. tit. 47, § 2-305 in its 2002 regular session. 5 The amendment, which took effect July 1, 2002, effectively resolved the Troopers’ complaints concerning future retirement benefits they claim are due, granting the Troopers the relief they sought. This much the Troopers concede. However, the Troopers urge us to declare the Board’s actions between July 1, 1980, and July 1, 2002, to have been unconstitutional. This we cannot do. “When a party seeks only equitable relief, as here, past exposure to alleged illegal conduct does not establish a present live controversy if unaccompanied by any continuing present effects.” McClendon, 100 F.3d at 867. A “plaintiff cannot maintain a declaratory or injunctive action unless he or she can demonstrate a good chance of being likewise injured in the future.” Beattie v. United States, 949 F.2d 1092, 1093 (10th Cir.1991) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The Troopers have made no such showing.

Accordingly, we conclude the issues raised by the Troopers in their appeal are moot, and DISMISS the appeal.

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

1 . For the same reason, we dismiss the Troopers’ appeal of the district court’s denial of their Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to reconsider.

2 . Originally, the Troopers requested payment of unpaid retirement benefits, but later abandoned this claim without prejudice.

3 . Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 2-305 (1979).

4 . Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 2-305(A) (July 1, 1980).

5 . The amendatory language is found in remunerated subsections C and D of Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 2-305 (July 1, 2002).