MIRANDA WALLINGFORD, ET AL V. ROBERT BONTA, ET AL, No. 21-56292 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiffs’ neighbor petitioned for a civil harassment restraining order against Plaintiffs and was granted a temporary restraining order. As a result of the TRO, Plaintiff was ordered to surrender his firearms to a California licensed firearms dealer. Certain California laws make it unlawful for any person subject to a “civil restraining order” issued by a California state court (including temporary restraining orders) to possess firearms or ammunition. Plaintiffs claim these laws violate the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution as applied to them. Though Plaintiffs were subject to civil restraining orders when they filed their suit, the orders against them have expired, and in January 2023, a California court denied the latest request to extend them.
The Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs’ action as moot. The panel rejected Plaintiffs’ argument that, although they were no longer subject to any firearm restrictions, the case fell within the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness. The panel noted that this doctrine is to be used sparingly, in exceptional situations, and generally only where (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again. The panel held that this case was moot because the relevant restraining orders have expired, a three-year-long restraining order is not too brief to be litigated on the merits, and there was no reasonable expectation that Plaintiffs will be subject to the same action again
Court Description: Mootness The panel dismissed as moot an action asserting an as- applied challenge to California laws that make it unlawful for any person subject to a civil restraining order issued by a California state court (including temporary restraining orders) to possess firearms or ammunition.
This case arises from a dispute between plaintiffs and their neighbor, which resulted in restraining orders issued against plaintiffs by the California Superior Court. Though plaintiffs were subject to a three-year restraining order when they filed suit, the order expired during the pendency of this appeal, and in January 2023, a California court denied the neighbor’s request for an extension. Plaintiffs are once again entitled to possess firearms and ammunition.
The panel rejected plaintiffs’ argument that, although they were no longer subject to any firearm restrictions, the case fell * The Honorable Elizabeth E. Foote, United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, sitting by designation.
within the “capable of repetition, yet evading review” exception to mootness. The panel noted that this doctrine is to be used sparingly, in exceptional situations, and generally only where (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.
The panel held that this case was moot because the relevant restraining orders have expired, a three-year-long restraining order is not too brief to be litigated on the merits, and there was no reasonable expectation that plaintiffs will be subject to the same action again. The mere possibility that a state court would grant another restraining order, after already denying a request for an extension, was speculative and insufficient to constitute a renewed threat of the “same action.” Finally, plaintiffs’ two-year delay in bringing a lawsuit after surrendering their firearms cut materially against them.
Judge Collins dissented from the majority’s dismissal of this case as moot. Given that plaintiffs’ neighbor successfully obtained no less than three temporary restraining orders, there was more than a theoretical possibility that plaintiffs will be subjected to a materially similar order in the future. Additionally, it was not clear that complex claims such as this one could be fully resolved within three years.
Proceeding to the merits of the appeal, Judge Collins would hold that the district court erred in concluding that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine barred plaintiffs’ suit, and would also reject the State’s contention that Younger requires abstention. He would reverse the district court’s dismissal of this action and remand for further proceedings.
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.