Murphy v. Fort Worth Independent School District

334 F.3d 470, 2003 WL 21396868
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJune 18, 2003
Docket03-10415
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 334 F.3d 470 (Murphy v. Fort Worth Independent School District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Murphy v. Fort Worth Independent School District, 334 F.3d 470, 2003 WL 21396868 (5th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

During the six-week period between the entry of the district court’s Memorandum Opinion and Order, Murphy v. Fort Worth Independent School District, 258 F.Supp.2d 569 (N.D.Tex.2003), and the submission of this appeal on an expedited basis to our court, the high' school senior, Terry Carter, who is the subject of this appeal, graduated from high *471 school. His graduation moots this appeal. If a claim becomes moot after the entry of a district court’s judgment and prior to the completion of appellate review, we generally vacate the judgment and remand for dismissal. United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950) (observing that, where a case has become moot on appeal, “[t]he established practice ... is to reverse or vacate the judgment below and remand with a direction to dismiss”). Vacatur of the lower court’s judgment is warranted only where mootness has occurred through happenstance, rather than through voluntary action of the losing party. See Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 71, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (“Vacatur is in order when mootness occurs through happenstance — circumstances not attributable to the parties.”). Because the plaintiffs claims for declaratory and injunctive relief have become moot through happenstance, we vacate the district court’s judgment and injunction.

On a related subject, whether the plaintiff is entitled to an attorney’s fee for this appeal, we have held repeatedly that “a determination of mootness neither precludes nor is precluded by an award of attorneys’ fees. The attorneys’ fees question turns instead on a wholly independent consideration: whether plaintiff is a ‘prevailing party.’ ” Doe v. Marshall, 622 F.2d 118, 120 (5th Cir.1980). The plaintiff is clearly the prevailing party and is entitled under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 (2000) to a reasonable attorney’s fee. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount of such fee, the plaintiff shall submit an appropriate affidavit of counsel, the defendant shall have an opportunity to respond, and the court will determine the amount payable to counsel for the plaintiff.

The judgment and injunction entered by the district court is VACATED by reason of mootness. The defendant is ORDERED to pay a reasonable attorney’s fee for this appeal, the amount to be determined by the court if the parties are unable to agree.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

G. v. Harrison School District No. 2
40 F.4th 1186 (Tenth Circuit, 2022)
Thomas v. Bryant
S.D. Mississippi, 2021
Joseph Thomas v. Tate Reeves
961 F.3d 800 (Fifth Circuit, 2020)
Albert Hill, III v. Tom Hunt
Fifth Circuit, 2020
Lauren C. v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist.
904 F.3d 363 (Fifth Circuit, 2018)
Hall v. Louisiana
884 F.3d 546 (Fifth Circuit, 2018)
Melendres v. Maricopa County
878 F.3d 1214 (Ninth Circuit, 2018)
Fite Oil & Gas, Incorporated v. SWEPI, L.P.
600 F. App'x 239 (Fifth Circuit, 2015)
Staley v. Harris County TX
485 F.3d 305 (Fifth Circuit, 2007)
Shokeh v. Thompson
375 F.3d 351 (Fifth Circuit, 2004)
Taylor v. Cockrell
74 F. App'x 369 (Fifth Circuit, 2003)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
334 F.3d 470, 2003 WL 21396868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-fort-worth-independent-school-district-ca5-2003.