Christopher Ivey v. Nancy Johnston

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________

No. 18-3573 ___________________________

Christopher Ivey; Eugene Banks

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Nancy Johnston

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: April 23, 2019 Filed: May 9, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________

Before LOKEN, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________

PER CURIAM.

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 court1 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. ______________________________

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.

-2-