RAVALLI COUNTY REPUBLICAN V. LINDA MCCULLOCH, No. 15-35967 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RAVALLI COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE; GALLATIN COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE; SANDERS COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE; DAWSON COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE; STILLWATER COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE; RICHLAND COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE; CARBON COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE; FLATHEAD COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE; MADISON COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE; BIG HORN COUNTY REPUBLICAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE; MONTANA REPUBLICAN PARTY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LINDA McCULLOCH, in her official capacity as Montana’s Secretary of State; REGINA PLETTENBERG, in her official No. 15-35967 DC. No. 6:14 cv-0058 BMM D Mont., Helena ORDER capacity as the Election Administrator of Ravalli County; CHARLOTTE MILLS, n her official capacity as the Election Administrator of Gallatin County; BOBBI CHRISTENSEN, in her official capacity as the Election Administrator of Sanders County; SHIRLEY KREIMAN, in her official capacity as the Election Administrator of Dawson County; PAULINE MISHLER, in her capacity as the Election Administrator of Stillwater County; STEPHANIE VERHASSELT, in her official capacity as the Election Administrator for Richland County; JUDY CHRISTENSEN, in her official capacity as the Election Administrator for Carbon County; PAULA ROBINSON, in her official capacity as the Election Administrator for Flathead County; PEGGY STEMLER, in her official capacity as the Election Administrator for Madison county; KIMBERLY YARLOTT, in her official capacity as the Election Administrator for Big Horn County, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding 2 Submission Deferred May 4, 2016 Portland, Oregon Submitted July 20, 2016* Before: TASHIMA, TALLMAN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. This is an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs’ motion sought the preliminary injunction to prohibit certain action by State officials with respect to the then-approaching June 2016 primary election. Because we cannot grant effective relief with respect to an election that has already taken place, this action is moot. See Vegas Diamond Props. LLC v. FDIC, 669 F.3d 933, 936, (9th Cir. 2012) (“This action is moot becuase the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred and can no longer be prevented.”). Moreover, County Committee Plaintiffs-Appellants have voluntarily dismissed the underlying action with prejudice. The office of a preliminary injunction is, of course, to grant necessary injunctive relief pendente lite and its term of office expires once the litigation comes to an end. Here, the dismissal of the underlying action has obviated any need to consider preliminary injunctive relief. To the extent that appellants seek to raise other or broader issues, they have * The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). 3 now noticed another pending appeal from the order dismissing the action, in No. 16-35375, where, presumably, such questions can be litigated. Appeal DISMISSED. No costs. 4
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.
