FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION, No. 18-15242 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 5:16-cv-04051- LHK UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; RYAN D. MCCARTHY, Secretary of the Army, in his official OPINION capacity; UNITED STATES ARMY FAMILY AND MORALE, WELFARE AND RECREATION PROGRAMS; UNITED STATES ARMY CHILD, YOUTH AND SCHOOL SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted August 5, 2019 San Francisco, California Filed September 18, 2019 2 AMERICAN DIABETES ASS’N V. U.S. DEP’T OF ARMY Before: Eugene E. Siler, * Michael Daly Hawkins, and Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Hawkins SUMMARY ** Mootness / Standing The panel affirmed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) dismissal of the American Diabetes Association’s First Amended Complaint seeking injunctive and declaratory relief under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act concerning defendants’ provision of diabetes-related care in the U.S. Army’s Child, Youth, and School Services’ (“CYSS”) programs. The Association is a nationwide non-profit that has assisted families that have assertedly experienced diabetes- related discrimination in the CYSS programs. CYSS operates programs that are sometimes the only childcare options for families working and living on Army bases in remote areas. In July 2016, when the lawsuit began, the Army had in place U.S. Army Regulation 608-10 and 2008 Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command Memorandum * The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. ** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. AMERICAN DIABETES ASS’N V. U.S. DEP’T OF ARMY 3 (the “Old Policy”) which prohibited CYSS staff from providing essential medical care for diabetic children. In June 2017, defendants revoked the Old Policy and replaced it with a “New Policy” that provides for possible diabetes- related accommodations. The panel held that the Association’s challenge to the Old Policy, as well as the injuries incurred thereunder, were moot where the Association sought only prospective relief. Specifically, the panel held that defendants satisfied their burden of clearly showing they cannot reasonably be expected to reinstitute the Old Policy’s blanket prohibition on care. The panel rejected the Association’s contention that the voluntary cessation exception to mootness applied. The panel held that the Association lacked standing to challenge the New Policy. Specifically, first, the panel held that the district court did not err by finding the Association failed to establish organizational standing where the Association did not show it diverted resources to combat the New Policy, and thereby, did not establish ”injury in fact.” Second, the panel held that the Association failed to establish representational standing where none of its members had standing to sue in their own right. The panel held that none of the members had actual knowledge of the challenged provisions at the time ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals