From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ashcroft v. Mattis

U.S.
May 16, 1977
431 U.S. 171 (1977)

Summary

holding that a claim for declaratory relief is moot where the “primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that [the plaintiff] will obtain emotional satisfaction from ruling”

Summary of this case from Volkman v. Ryker

Opinion

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

No. 76-1179.

Decided May 16, 1977

Once the District Court had decided that the defendant police officers were not liable in appellee's suit against them for shooting and killing his son in an attempted escape from arrest, the suit no longer presented a live "case or controversy" entitling appellee to a declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of Missouri statutes permitting police to use deadly force in apprehending a felon, and hence this court is unable to consider the merits of the Court of Appeals' holding that such statutes were unconstitutional. Any emotional satisfaction that appellee would obtain from a ruling that his son's death was wrongful is not enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement.

547 F.2d 1007, vacated and remanded.


Appellee's 18-year-old son was shot and killed by police while attempting to escape arrest. Appellee filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the police officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. He sought to recover damages, and also to obtain a declaratory judgment that the Missouri statutes authorizing the police action were unconstitutional. The District Court held that a defense of good faith had been established, and denied both forms of relief. No appeal was taken from the denial of damages, but appellee did seek review of the denial of declaratory relief. The Eighth Circuit held that declaratory relief was available and remanded for consideration of the merits of the constitutional issue. Mattis v. Schnarr, 502 F.2d 588 (1974).

These statutes permit police to use deadly force in apprehending a person who has committed a felony, following notice of the intent to arrest. Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 559.040 and 544.190 (1969); see Mattis v. Schnarr, 502 F.2d 588, 591, and n. 4 (CA8 1974).

On remand, appellee filed an amended complaint, in which he made no claim for damages. The Missouri Attorney General was allowed to intervene in defense of the statutes, and the case was then submitted on stipulated facts. The District Court upheld the statutes, Mattis v. Schnarr, 404 F. Supp. 643 (1975), but was reversed by a divided Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, 547 F.2d 1007 (1976). The Attorney General brought an appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1254 (2) from the holding that the state statutes were unconstitutional.

Although we are urged to consider the merits of the Court of Appeals' holding, we are unable to do so, because this suit does not now present a live "case or controversy." This suit was brought to determine the police officers' liability for the death of appellee's son. That issue has been decided, and there is no longer any possible basis for a damages claim. Nor is there any possible basis for a declaratory judgment. For a declaratory judgment to issue, there must be a dispute which "calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established facts." Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 242 (1937). See also Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal Oil Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941). Here, the District Court was asked to answer the hypothetical question whether the defendants would have been liable apart from their defense of good faith. No "present right" of appellee was at stake. Indeed, appellee's primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that he will obtain emotional satisfaction from a ruling that his son's death was wrongful. Appellee's Motion to Affirm 5-6, n. 1. Emotional involvement in a lawsuit is not enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement; were the rule otherwise, few cases could ever become moot.

The second amended complaint also alleges that appellee has another son who " if ever arrested or brought under an attempt at arrest on suspicion of a felony, might flee or give the appearance of fleeing, and would therefore be in danger of being killed by these defendants or other police officers . . . ." 3 App. in Mattis v. Schnarr, No. 75-1849 (CA8), p. 5 (emphasis added). Such speculation is insufficient to establish the existence of a present, live controversy.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to direct the District Court to dismiss the second amended complaint.

It is so ordered.


Summaries of

Ashcroft v. Mattis

U.S.
May 16, 1977
431 U.S. 171 (1977)

holding that a claim for declaratory relief is moot where the “primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that [the plaintiff] will obtain emotional satisfaction from ruling”

Summary of this case from Volkman v. Ryker

holding that a claim for declaratory relief is moot when no "present right" is involved and the primary interest is the emotional satisfaction from a favorable ruling

Summary of this case from Green v. Branson

holding that a claim is moot when the primary interest is the emotional satisfaction from a favorable ruling

Summary of this case from Lankford v. City of Hobart

holding that a claim for declaratory relief is moot when no "present right" is involved and the primary interest is the emotional satisfaction from a favorable ruling

Summary of this case from Cox v. Phelps Dodge Corp.

holding that a claim for declaratory relief was moot where the "primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that [the plaintiff] will obtain emotional satisfaction from ruling"

Summary of this case from Janny v. Palmer

holding that plaintiff had not satisfied standing requirements where "present interest in the controversy is that [plaintiff] will obtain emotional satisfaction from a ruling"

Summary of this case from Koster v. Whitaker

holding a plaintiff may not seek a declaratory judgment to answer a hypothetical question or where the plaintiff's present interest in the lawsuit is the "emotional satisfaction" of a ruling that the defendants wronged him

Summary of this case from Hawver v. Nuss

holding that a claim for declaratory relief was moot where the "primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that [the plaintiff] will obtain emotional satisfaction from ruling"

Summary of this case from Vreeland v. Griggs

holding that for declaratory relief to issue, there must be a dispute which calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present rights based upon established facts

Summary of this case from Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co. v. Xpress Water, LLC

holding that a claim for declaratory relief is moot when no "present right" is involved and the primary interest is the emotional satisfaction from a favorable ruling

Summary of this case from Richardson v. Tricom Pictures Prods., Inc.

concluding that appellee's claim for declaratory relief was moot where his "primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that he will obtain emotional satisfaction from a ruling that his son's death was wrongful"

Summary of this case from Jordan v. Sosa

In Ashcroft, the Court declined to issue a declaratory judgment that statutes authorizing police action were unconstitutional because the plaintiff's "primary claim of a present interest in the controversy is that he will obtain emotional satisfaction from a ruling that his son's death was wrongful."

Summary of this case from UWM Student Ass'n v. Lovell

In Mattis, the plaintiff's son was killed by police officers; the plaintiff sought damages and declaratory relief that the statutes authorizing the officers' actions were unconstitutional, and the lower court held that no damages were available because the officers acted in good faith.

Summary of this case from Horizon Bank Trust Co. v. Massachusetts

raising jurisdictional issue sua sponte

Summary of this case from Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. Aetna Cas. Sur. Co.

In Mattis, the plaintiff's son was shot and killed by police officers and the plaintiff then brought a § 1983 suit for monetary and declaratory relief. See id. 431 U.S. at 171, 97 S.Ct. at 1739.

Summary of this case from Haislah v. Walton

In Mattis, the Supreme Court determined that the plaintiff did not have standing to obtain a judgment declaring unconstitutional Missouri statutes that authorized police officers to use deadly force to apprehend individuals committing 10 felonies.

Summary of this case from Fletcher v. City of Madison

stating declaratory judgment is available only to adjudicate a present right, and not for speculation regarding future injury

Summary of this case from U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Sabre Holdings Corp.

In Mattis, the father of a boy who had been killed by the police sought a declaration that a Missouri statute authorizing police officers to use deadly force in apprehending felons was unconstitutional.

Summary of this case from Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div. of the United States of America Dep't of Homeland Sec.

stating "emotional involvement . . . is not enough to meet the case-or-controversy requirement; were the rule otherwise, few cases could ever become moot."

Summary of this case from Kay v. Hurston County

noting that the purpose of a declaratory judgments is to settle actual disputes

Summary of this case from Higman Marine Services, Inc. v. BP Amoco Chemical Co.

In Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 171-72, 97 S.Ct. 1739, 52 L.Ed.2d 219 (1977), the plaintiff sued state law enforcement officials after police officers shot and killed his 18 year-old son.

Summary of this case from Buritica v. United States

In Ashcroft the father of a boy who was shot and killed by police while attempting to escape arrest filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the police officers. He sought damages and a declaratory judgment that the Missouri statutes authorizing the police action were unconstitutional.

Summary of this case from Saenz v. Murphy
Case details for

Ashcroft v. Mattis

Case Details

Full title:ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI v . MATTIS

Court:U.S.

Date published: May 16, 1977

Citations

431 U.S. 171 (1977)
97 S. Ct. 1739

Citing Cases

Fieger v. Michigan Supreme Court

471 F.3d at 640. Grendell also relied on Ashcroft v. Mattis, 431 U.S. 171, 97 S.Ct. 1739, 52 L.Ed.2d 219…

Horizon Bank Trust Co. v. Massachusetts

An appeal can also become moot because of a party's own choices about which issues in a case to appeal. See…