Salazar v. Dist. of Columbia

• Decision Date: 13 March 2012
• Docket Number: No. 10–7106.,10–7106.
• Parties: Oscar SALAZAR, by his Parents and next Friends, Adela and Oscar SALAZAR, et al., Appellees v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

671 F.3d 1258

Oscar SALAZAR, by his Parents and next Friends, Adela and Oscar SALAZAR, et al., Appellees

v.DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Appellants.

No. 10–7106.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Oct. 18, 2011.Decided March 13, 2012.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:93–cv–00452).Richard S. Love, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General, Todd S. Kim, Solicitor General, and Donna M. Murasky, Deputy Solicitor General. Robert C. Utiger, Attorney, entered an appearance.

Kathleen L. Millian argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Bruce J. Terris and Jane M. Liu. Lynn E. Cunningham, Martha J. Perkins, and Paula D. Scott entered appearances.

Before: ROGERS, GARLAND, and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GARLAND.

GARLAND, Circuit Judge:

Since 1993, a consent decree has governed how the District of Columbia provides “early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment services” under the Medicaid Act. The District has now asked the district court to vacate that decree on two grounds: that an intervening Supreme Court decision has made clear that the plaintiffs lack a private right of action to enforce the Medicaid Act, and that in any event the District has come into compliance with the requirements of the Act. After the district court rejected the District's first argument, the District appealed without waiting for resolution of the second—which remains pending. Because we conclude that the court's rejection of one of the District's two arguments does not constitute an order “refusing to dissolve [an] injunction[ ]” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

I

In 1993, the plaintiffs filed a class action complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the District of Columbia was violating the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq. In particular, the plaintiffs alleged that the District was failing to properly administer the Act's child health provisions—known as “early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment” (EPSDT) services. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(43); id. § 1396d(r); see Compl. at 37 (J.A. 275). Although the District argued that the plaintiffs had no private right to enforce those provisions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court disagreed, Wellington v. District of Columbia, 851 F.Supp. 1, 6 (D.D.C.1994), and determined that the District had violated the Act, Salazar v. District of Columbia, 954 F.Supp. 278, 328–33 (D.D.C.1996).

The District sought appellate review, but it ultimately dismissed its appeal in favor of entering into a comprehensive settlement. The district court approved the settlement and, in January 1999, entered the Settlement Order at issue here. That Order contains detailed requirements governing the District's EPSDT services. The Order, together with subsequent remedial orders, continues in effect today.

In 2009, the District moved, pursuant to Rule 60(b)(5) and (6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to terminate the Settlement Order and related orders.¹ The District made two arguments in support of its motion. First, it contended that the Supreme Court's intervening decision in Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002), “resolved prior confusion in the Supreme Court's ... jurisprudence in a manner” indicating that there is no private right of action to enforce the EPSDT provisions of the Medicaid Act under § 1983. Defs.' Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Terminate at 5 (J.A. 604). Second, the District maintained that, even if the plaintiffs did have such a right of action, continuation of the decree was no longer equitable because the District had achieved compliance with federal law governing EPSDT services. Id. at 20 (J.A. 619).

In response to the District's motion, the plaintiffs sought discovery as to whether the District was in fact in compliance with the Medicaid Act. Opposing that request, the District argued that the parties should first brief the private right of action issue. “If the Court agrees with the District that no private right of action exists ..., expensive and time consuming discovery will have been avoided. If the Court rules against the District, discovery can commence.” Defs.' Opp. to Pls.' Mot. for Disc. at 3 (J.A. 679). The court adopted the District's suggestion and put discovery on hold. Order on Pls.' Mot. for Disc. at 1–2 (J.A. 683–84).

In August 2010, after briefing and argument on the private right of action issue, the district court concluded that relief on that ground was unwarranted for three reasons. First, noting that motions under Rule 60(b) must be brought “within a reasonable time,” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1), the court held that the District had “prejudice[d] Plaintiffs' interests in finality and repose” by waiting seven years after Gonzaga was issued before filing its motion. Salazar v. District of Columbia, 729 F.Supp.2d 257, 261 (D.D.C.2010). Second, the court held that Gonzaga did not constitute a “significant change” in the law, but merely a clarification. Id. at 266. As a result, the District could not satisfy either Rule 60(b)(5), which requires “a significant change either in factual conditions or in law,” Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 384, 112 S.Ct. 748, 116 L.Ed.2d 867 (1992), or Rule 60(b)(6), which requires “extraordinary circumstances,” Ackermann v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199, 71 S.Ct. 209, 95 L.Ed. 207 (1950). See Salazar, 729 F.Supp.2d at 263–64. Finally, the court held that the District had misinterpreted Gonzaga. In the court's view, Gonzaga did not deprive the plaintiffs of a private right of action to enforce the Medicaid Act's EPSDT provisions. See id. at 268–71.

Based on this reasoning, the district court issued an order denying the District's motion to terminate “as to the private right of action issue.” Id. at 272. The District appealed immediately, without seeking a ruling on its alternative argument that it had come into compliance with the statute. As of the date of this decision, nothing further has transpired with respect to the compliance issue in the district court. The plaintiffs have not renewed their request for discovery, the District has not sought judgment, and the court has not ruled. See Oral Arg. Recording at 7:15–7:45; Civil Docket for Case No. 1:93–cv–00452 (as of Mar. 6, 2012).

II

Because we are a court of limited jurisdiction, our inquiry must always begin by asking whether we have jurisdiction to decide a particular appeal. See United States v. E–Gold, Ltd., 521 F.3d 411, 413 (D.C.Cir.2008); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998). If we conclude that we lack jurisdiction, that is also where our inquiry ends.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, our appellate jurisdiction generally extends only to the “final decisions” of district courts. Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 83, 101 S.Ct. 993, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). Although this finality requirement necessarily delays the resolution of important legal questions, Congress has determined that such delay must be tolerated in order to avoid “the debilitating effect on judicial administration” that would otherwise result from “piecemeal appe[llate] disposition of what is, in practical consequence, but a single controversy.” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 471, 98 S.Ct. 2454, 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978). Nonetheless, “[b]ecause rigid application of this principle was found to create undue hardship in some cases, ... Congress created certain exceptions to it.” Carson, 450 U.S. at 83, 101 S.Ct. 993.

The District invokes one such exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), which gives this court jurisdiction over appeals from “[i]nterlocutory orders ... granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions.” In the District's view, the district court's rejection of its private cause of action argument falls within that exception. According to the District, by rejecting that argument, the court “refus[ed] to dissolve [an] injunction[ ].” Id.

The exception provided by § 1292(a)(1) is a limited one, and the Supreme Court has “construed [it] narrowly.” Carson, 450 U.S. at 84, 101 S.Ct. 993. Because the “congressional policy against piecemeal review” remains an important concern, id., the Court declared in Switzerland Cheese Ass'n v. E. Horne's Market, Inc. that we must “approach this statute somewhat gingerly lest a floodgate be opened.” 385 U.S. 23, 24, 87 S.Ct. 193, 17 L.Ed.2d 23 (1966). To employ a different metaphor suggested by that case's title, we must take care not to turn the barrier against piecemeal appeals into Swiss cheese.

After a series of decisions by the Supreme Court and this court, the scope of § 1292(a)(1) is now relatively clear, though resistant to brief summary. If the interlocutory order in question is one “clearly granting or denying a specific request for injunctive relief”—or, for purposes of this case, one clearly denying a specific request to dissolve an injunction—it falls within the plain text of § 1292(a)(1) and is appealable without any further showing. Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 849 F.2d 1481, 1486 n. 11 (D.C.Cir.1988); I.A.M. Nat'l Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 789 F.2d 21, 24 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1986). Even if an order does not by its terms grant or deny a specific request for an injunction—or, as here, does not by its terms grant or deny a specific request to dissolve an injunction—the order may still be appealable if it has the “practical effect” of doing so. Carson, 450 U.S. at 83, 101 S.Ct. 993; Cobell v....