West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources v. Warne
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that to the extent the United States is deemed a party to this action it is dismissed; further directing the residue of this action is remanded to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County for any further proceedings it deems necessary; denying as moot the United States' 5 MOTION to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and denying as moot the United States' 7 MOTION to Stay further proceedings. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/4/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties; Clerk, Circuit Court of Kanawha County) (lca)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES
Plaintiff
v.
Civil Action No. 2:11-0386
MARY WARNE
Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending are the United States’ motions (1) to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, filed June 27, 2011, and
(2) to stay further proceedings herein pending resolution of the
motion to dismiss, filed July 13, 2011.
No party has responded
to the motions.
I.
On November 23, 2010, plaintiff petitioned the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County to appoint a conservator for defendant.
The Sheriff of Kanawha County was ultimately appointed as
requested by plaintiff.
The Sheriff then moved the circuit court
to compel the Social Security Administration to appoint him as
the representative payee for defendant respecting her Social
Security benefits.
On May 2, 2011, the circuit court granted the
request, and directed the Social Security Administration to
appoint the Sheriff as representative payee for defendant.
On May 31, 2011, the United States, on behalf the
Social Security Administration, and its employees, Gwen Martin
and Libby Toth, purported to enter the case as a party and remove
this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1).
The United
States sought vacatur of the circuit court’s May 2, 2011, order,
asserting the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to
compel any action by the United States or its instrumentalities
or agents.
It additionally sought remand once vacatur had
occurred.
On July 15, 2011, the United States filed a notice
reflecting that the Sheriff had been appointed by the Social
Security Administration as representative payee for defendant.
II.
“The mootness doctrine is a limit on . . . [federal]
jurisdiction that originates in Article III's case or controversy
language.”
Townes v. Jarvis, 577 F.3d 543, 554 (4th Cir. 2009)
(quotation marks and brackets omitted), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct.
1883 (2010).
A case is moot “when the issues presented are no
longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest
in the outcome.”
Lux v. Judd, No. 10-1997, --- F.3d ----, 2011
2
WL 2624173 , at *4 (4th Cir. Jul. 6, 2011) (quoting Simmons v.
United Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 763 (4th Cir.
2011)).
Inasmuch as the Social Security Administration has now
provided the precise relief requested by the Sheriff and ordered
by the circuit court, namely, appointing the Sheriff as
representative payee for defendant, there does not appear to be
any live controversy for adjudication.
The court, accordingly,
ORDERS that to the extent the United States is deemed a party to
this action that it be, and it hereby is, dismissed.
Absent any
other grounds upon which federal subject matter jurisdiction
might be based, it is further ORDERED that the residue of this
action be, and it hereby is, remanded to the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County for any further proceedings that it deems
necessary.
It is further ORDERED that the United States’ motions
(1) to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and (2)
to stay further proceedings herein pending resolution of the
motion to dismiss, be, and they hereby are, denied as moot.
3
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written
opinion and order to the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Kanawha
County, all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.
DATED:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?