Jurisdiction; Dismissal of constitutional claims for declaratory & injunctive relief under 42 USC § 1983 as moot; Speech First v. Schlissel

The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff-Thomas’s constitutional claims as moot where her allegedly unconstitutional removal from defendant-City of Memphis’s email listserv was “not likely to recur[,]” and the City showed that its change in media relations policy “completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation.” Thomas sued under § 1983 for alleged violation of her constitutional rights by excluding her from the City’s Media Advisory List in retaliation for her news coverage of the mayor. Approximately 13 days after she filed her claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, the City issued a new policy as to “all media advisories.” It then successfully moved to dismiss based on mootness. The court held that Thomas’s case was properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. It concluded that there was no actual case and controversy after the City changed its policy. Its “voluntary cessation” of the Media Advisory List mooted the case. The court found that the City’s change in its media-relations policy was a “legislative-like” rather than “ad hoc” procedure. The City’s Chief Legal Officer averred that “the City went through a formal, organized process, even if self-imposed.” Further, given that the “change in media relations policy was ‘legislative-like,’ the City need only demonstrate that it will not revert to the Media Advisory List for” the court to determine that the challenged activity was not likely to recur. While Thomas speculated “that the City might re-implement the Media Advisory List, there is nothing in the record that would suggest the City is likely to return to its old ways,” and she failed to otherwise cast doubt on its “good faith in promulgating the new policy.” The court also noted that any injunction at this point would lack “any practical effect.”