Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Christopher IVEY; Eugene Banks Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Nancy JOHNSTON Defendant-Appellee
[Unpublished]
In this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, Minnesota civil detainees Christopher Ivey and Eugene Banks--who have had their civil rights restored and vote in federal, state, and local elections--challenged a Minnesota Sex Offender Program policy restricting access to the internet and certain television channels, including PBS and C-SPAN. They alleged that the policy violated their rights under the First Amendment and the Minnesota State Constitution, including their right to be well-informed voters. In July 2018, they moved for a preliminary injunction to lift the media access restrictions in order to inform themselves about the candidates and issues involved in the November 2018 general election. They characterized the requested relief as “temporary” and “narrow” [in] scope. The district court 1 denied the motion, and Ivey and Banks have filed this interlocutory appeal. Without commenting on the merits of their claim, we conclude that the appeal is moot, as the November 2018 election has passed. See Forbes v. Ark. Educ. Television Commc'n Network Found., 982 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) (dismissing as moot appeal involving only question of preliminary injunction when meaningful preliminary injunctive relief was no longer possible); cf. Stone v. Bd. of Election Comm'rs for City of Chicago, 643 F.3d 543, 544 (7th Cir. 2011) (appeal from denial of preliminary injunction challenging signature requirement for mayoral candidates was moot because plaintiffs only requested relief for 2011 election, which had passed; issue did not evade review because plaintiffs could still pursue underlying suit challenging the requirement for future elections).
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal as moot. We express no opinion on the merits of appellants’ underlying First Amendment claim.
FOOTNOTES
1. The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable David T. Schultz, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
PER CURIAM.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 18-3573
Decided: May 09, 2019
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)