Unpublished Disposition, 914 F.2d 1496 (9th Cir. 1990)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 914 F.2d 1496 (9th Cir. 1990)

The BENTON FRANKLIN RIVERFRONT TRAILWAY AND BRIDGECOMMITTEE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Samuel K. SKINNER, individually and as Secretary of theUnited States Department of Transportation; Cityof Pasco, Washington; City ofKennewick, Washington,Defendants-Appellees.

No. 89-35399.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Jan. 12, 1990.Decided Sept. 26, 1990.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING, BEEZER and RYMER, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

Subsequent to the submission of this case on appeal, the concrete roadway and steel superstructure of the bridge has been demolished.1  Appellees have moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the issues in this litigation have thereby been rendered moot.

The issue in this appeal is whether the Secretary of Transportation acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner in determining that there was no prudent or feasible alternative to demolition of the old truss bridge.2  Appellant's complaint sought injunctive relief prohibiting the appellees from taking steps to demolish the bridge. Since the superstructure of the bridge has now been demolished, the proposed alternative and adaptive uses for the bridge are clearly unfeasible and any possible judicial remedies have been rendered meaningless. "Where the activities sought to be enjoined have already occurred, and the appellate courts cannot undo what has already been done, the action is moot." Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Bergland, 576 F.2d 1377, 1379 (9th Cir. 1978). See also Florida Wildlife Federation v. Goldschmidt, 611 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1980). Therefore, the appellees' motion to dismiss this appeal is granted.

 1

Appellant was unable to post a $75,000 bond that the district court imposed as a condition for a stay on appeal. Their Emergency Motion for an Order Modifying the Bond or for an Injunction Pending Appeal was denied, as was their motion for a post-argument stay

 2

The appellant argues that the "real" issue in this appeal is the permissibility of using federal funds for the demolition of the bridge. Appellant does not have standing to litigate this issue

In Benton Franklin Riverfront Trailway v. Lewis, 701 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1983), we held that appellant's interest "in the historic and aesthetic appreciation of the bridge" was sufficient to allow appellant to maintain this action. See United States v. SCRAP, 412 U.S. 669, 686-87 (1973); Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734 (1972). The demolition of the bridge has deprived appellant of this interest.

Further, appellant cannot complain about the disbursement of federal funds solely on the basis of its taxpayer or citizen status. Standing cannot be established simply by pleading that the government must be administered according to law. Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 454 U.S. 464, 482-88 (1982). See also 13 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 3531.10, at 634 (2d ed. 1984).

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.