Fouts v. Warren City Council

97 F.4th 459

James R. FOUTS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WARREN CITY COUNCIL; Sonja Buffa; Anthony Forlini;City Of Warren Election Commission, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 23-1826

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Decided and Filed: April 2, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit. No. 2:23-cv-11868—George Caram Steeh III, District Judge.

ON BRIEF: Nabih H. Ayad, AYAD LAW, PLLC, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellant. Mary Massaron, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Appellee Warren City Council. Mary Michaels, CITY OF WARREN, Warren, Michigan, for Appellees Sonja Buffa and City of Warren Election Commission. Frank Krycia, MACOMB COUNTY, Mount Clemens, Michigan, for Appellee Anthony Forlini.

Before: CLAY, McKEAGUE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

CLAY, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff James R. Fouts, the former mayor of Warren, Michigan, appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint against Defendants Warren City Council, Warren City Election Commission, Anthony G. Forlini, in his capacity as the Macomb County Clerk, and Sonja D. Buffa, in her capacity as the Warren City Clerk. Fouts brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by retroactively applying a new term-limit provision to bar him from running for a fifth term as Warren's mayor. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of Fouts' complaint.

I. BACKGROUND

At the time of his complaint, Fouts was serving his fourth term as mayor of Warren, Michigan, having been in office since 2007. In 2020, Warren voters passed an amendment to Warren's city charter that shortened the existing term limits for mayor and brought mayoral term limits in line with term limits for other City offices. Specifically, the amended charter provides that "[a] person shall not be eligible to hold the position of mayor, city council, city clerk or city treasurer for more than the greater of three (3) complete terms or twelve (12) years in that office." Warren City Charter, § 4.3(d). Despite the new charter amendment, Fouts initiated the process of placing his name on the ballot to run for a fifth term as mayor in the 2023 election.

In February 2023, the Warren City Council ("City Council") filed a complaint in Michigan's circuit court, seeking to compel Buffa and the Warren City Election Commission ("Election Commission") to remove Fouts' name from the 2023 mayoral ballot. See Warren City Council v. Buffa, No. 2023-000611-AW, 2023 WL 3766706, at *1 (Mich. Cir. Ct. Mar. 23, 2023) rev'd No. 365488, — N.W.3d —, —, 2023 WL 3046530, at *11 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2023). The Michigan trial court held that Fouts could run for mayor of Warren in 2023. Warren City Council, 2023 WL 3766706, at *5-6. It found that the charter amendment did not clearly intend to include Fouts' prior terms as mayor in assessing whether the new three-term limit barred him from office. Id. The Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, ordering Buffa and the Election Commission to disqualify Fouts from the 2023 mayoral race. See Warren City Council, — N.W.3d at —, 2023 WL 3046530, at *11. The Court of Appeals found that the plain language of the charter amendment meant that Fouts' prior terms counted in calculating whether he had exceeded the new three-term limit. Id. at —, 2023 WL 3046530, at *5. The Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear the case. Warren City Council v. Buffa, 511 Mich. 962, 989 N.W.2d 679 (2023) (mem.).

In August 2023, Fouts filed the instant case in federal court. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants violated his First Amendment rights to free expression and association, his Fifth Amendment right to due process of law,¹ and his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. He sought declaratory relief and monetary damages, and requested that the district court decertify the results of the 2023 mayoral primary election and order a special election that would include Fouts on the 2023 ballot. The City Council and Forlini each moved to dismiss Fouts' complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.² The district court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction over Fouts' complaint, but dismissed the complaint in its entirety because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Specifically, the district court rejected Defendants' arguments that Fouts' complaint amounted to an attempt to overturn the state court's judgment, which, if true, would deprive the district court of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1257; Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 416, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D. C. Ct. of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983). The so-called Rooker-Feldman doctrine only applies in the "limited circumstances" when "state-court losers" bring actions in federal court "complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments" and "inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 291, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 161 L.Ed.2d 454 (2005). In this case, the district court correctly found that Fouts' constitutional challenge to the purportedly retroactive application of the term-limit amendment did not require it to review and reject the state court judgment. Although Fouts' complaint, at points, took issue with the Michigan Court of Appeals' decision, as the district court correctly noted, the ultimate source of Fouts' injury in this federal action was not the state court judgment, but Defendants' initial proposal of the term-limit amendment and subsequent application of the term-limit amendment to include Fouts' prior terms as mayor. Because this constitutional challenge would not require a review or a rejection of the state court's judgment interpreting the term-limit amendment, the district court correctly applied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and found that it did not bar jurisdiction over Fouts' claims.

Fouts timely appealed the district court's judgment, and asked this Court for expedited review of this appeal. We entered an order on October 4, 2023, denying Fouts' request for expedited review because Fouts had unreasonably delayed filing his federal lawsuit and because he was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his appeal. We now fully consider the merits of Fouts' appeal, having the benefit of full briefing from the parties. Defendants urge us to uphold the district court's dismissal of Fouts' complaint on the merits, and alternatively argue that we should affirm the district court's dismissal of Fouts' complaint based on the principle "that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election." Republican Nat'l Comm. v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 589 U.S. 423, 424, 140 S.Ct. 1205, 206 L.Ed.2d 452 (2020).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

We review de novo the district court's dismissal of a complaint for its failure to state a claim. Majestic Bldg. Maint., Inc. v. Huntington Bancshares Inc., 864 F.3d 455, 458 (6th Cir. 2017). We accept all of the complaint's factual allegations as true and determine whether these facts sufficiently state a plausible claim for relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

B. Analysis

1. Mootness

Because Fouts requests relief tied in part to the 2023 Warren mayoral race—an election that has come and gone—we first consider whether his appeal is moot. Although no party raised this question, we must assure ourselves of our own jurisdiction to hear a case, and, accordingly, may raise the question of mootness sua sponte. Berger v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Bar Ass'n, 983 F.2d 718, 721 (6th Cir. 1993). A case may become moot at any stage of litigation "when the issues presented are no longer 'live' or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome." Graveline v. Benson, 992 F.3d 524, 533 (6th Cir. 2021) (quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969)).

In this case, even if Fouts' prospective relief has been mooted by the occurrence of the 2023 mayoral election, Fouts' request for monetary damages ensures our jurisdiction. A request for monetary damages may continue to present a live controversy, even when a plaintiff's claim for prospective relief is mooted. See Blau v. Fort Thomas Pub. Sch. Dist., 401 F.3d 381, 387 (6th Cir. 2005) ("[T]he existence of a damages claim ensures that this dispute is a live one and one over which Article III gives us continuing authority.").

Given our jurisdiction based on Fouts' request for monetary damages, we need not decide whether his requests for prospective relief are moot. We note, however, that his claim for injunctive relief— which requested that he be permitted to run as a candidate in the 2023 Warren mayoral election—is likely mooted by the occurrence of that election. See Lawrence v. Blackwell, 430 F.3d 368, 371 (6th Cir. 2005). Nevertheless, Fouts' request for declaratory relief likely remains live by virtue of an exception to mootness for disputes capable of repetition yet evading review. "This exception applies when '(1) the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.' " Id. (quoting Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975)). Election disputes readily meet the first prong of this test as, generally, "litigation has only a few months before the remedy sought is rendered impossible by the occurrence of the relevant election." Id. The second prong is satisfied if the controversy is "capable of repetition" not whether "a recurrence of the dispute [is] more...