Carvel by and Through Carvel v. Bellflower Unified School District

Full title: Michael CARVEL, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Chastity…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 17, 2000

234 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 2000)

Opinion

234 F.3d 1276 (9th Cir. 2000) Michael CARVEL, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Chastity Carvel; Chastity Carvel; Al Carvel, Plaintiffs--Appellants, v. BELLFLOWER UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant--Appellee. No. 00-55899. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit August 17, 2000

Submitted August 7, 2000. ²

2 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

D.C. No. CV-00-03931-DT

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Dickran M. Tevrizian, District Judge, Presiding.

Before WALLACE, SCHROEDER, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ¹

1 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

This appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction comes to us for review under Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3. We conclude the appeal is moot because the district court's order affected only the current school year and thus expired on June 23, 2000. See University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 398 (1981).

We conclude no exception to the mootness doctrine applies here. Appellate intervention is not required to prevent the central legal issue from evading review because the action remains pending in the district court. See Cammermeyer v. Perry, 97 F.3d 1235, 1238 (9th Cir.1996). We express no views on the merits of appellants' action under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. See Sacramento City Unified Sch. Dist. v. Rachel H, 14 F.3d 1398 (9th Cir.1994). Our disposition will affect the rights of the parties only until the district court renders final judgment. See Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International, 686 F.2d 750, 752 (9th Cir.1982).

DISMISSED.