Sanders v. Biden, No. 17-1043 (10th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT May 3, 2017 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court JERROLL SANDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, and KELLY SENNHOLZ, Plaintiff, v. JOSEPH A. BIDEN; MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (144th CONGRESS); MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE; DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America; MIKE PENCE, Vice President of the United States of America; DIRECTOR, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT (OPM), No. 17-1043 (D.C. No. 1:17-CV-00048-RBJ) (D. Colo.) Defendants - Appellees. ORDER AND JUDGMENT * * This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. ** Plaintiff-Appellant Jerroll Sanders and Plaintiff Kelly Sennholz filed a pro se emergency petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to enjoin the results of the November 2016 elections on the basis that Russia interfered with those elections. 1 R. 12–13. After “setting aside questions of jurisdiction, venue, and service” as well as standing, the district court sua sponte dismissed the action with prejudice, commenting that it was unaware of any “report or evidence that Russia or any other foreign power actually altered votes.” Id. at 67. Ms. Sanders appeals from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of the action with prejudice. Suffice it to say that the various events sought to be enjoined have already occurred, thereby rendering the case moot. Citizen Ctr. v. Gessler, 770 F.3d 900, 907 (10th Cir. 2014). Because the case became moot on appeal, we dismiss the appeal and instruct the district court to vacate its judgment and dismiss the action without prejudice. See McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 868 (10th Cir. 1996). Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge ** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
