Plaintiff Rockett Special Utility District is a retail public utility. Defendants Alamo Mission LLC and Red Oak Industrial Development Corporation each petitioned the Texas Public Utility Commission (PUC) to remove some land from Rocketts service area. Rockett sued, seeking to stop everyone involved—the PUCs commissioners, its executive director,
1
Alamo Mission, and Red Oak—through declaratory and injunctive relief. Rockett claimed that a “Conditional Commitment” by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to back a loan gives Rockett protections from service-area encroachment under 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b). But now on appeal, Rockett no longer has a Conditional Commitment. It has received a “Loan Note Guarantee” from the USDA, which is the subject of litigation in a different case but not this one.
2
An issue is moot when “it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party.” United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Knox v. Serv. Emps. Intl Union, Loc. 1000, 567 U.S. 298, 307, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 (2012) (cleaned up and citations omitted)). It is impossible for us to grant effectual injunctive or declaratory relief when the basis for that relief no longer exists. See Lewis v. Contl Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 478–79, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990) (holding claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot due to an intervening congressional amendment). Here, the basis for granting prospective relief no longer exists. Simply put, Rockett no longer has a Conditional Commitment. Rather, it has a Loan Note Guarantee that is not part of this litigation. Because we cannot grant Rockett effectual relief, this case is moot.
“When a case becomes moot on appeal, the appellate court should vacate the order of the district court and order dismissal of the action.” In re Taylor, 916 F.2d 1027, 1028 (5th Cir. 1990). Sometimes there is another option—vacate and remand—when (1) “the mootness is attributable to a change in the legal framework governing the case,” and (2) “the plaintiff may have some residual claim under the new framework that was understandably not asserted previously.” Lewis, 494 U.S. at 482, 110 S.Ct. 1249. Rockett contends that this case fits within this exception. We disagree. The legal framework governing this case has not changed. Only Rocketts rights under that legal framework have. Plus, Rockett has already asserted any residual claim it may have in its separate suit. Therefore, we will stick with our general rule.
* * *
For these reasons, we DISMISS this appeal, VACATE the district courts judgment, and REMAND this case to the district court with instructions to DISMISS. Red Oaks pending motion for us to take judicial notice of further proceedings in the PUC is DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
FOOTNOTE
1
. The PUCs commissioners and executive director have changed since Rockett filed this suit. We have substituted the current officeholders. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
2
. Plaintiffs Original Complaint at 10, Rockett Special Utility District v. Botkin, No. 20-CV-1207 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2020) (Dkt. 1) (“[T]he USDA issued ․ a Loan Note Guarantee ․ to Rockett.”). Alamo Mission has asked us to take judicial notice of this new lawsuit. No party opposed its motion, and we may take judicial notice of proceedings in the district court. In re Deepwater Horizon, 934 F.3d 434, 440 (5th Cir. 2019) (per curiam) (citation omitted). Therefore, we GRANT Alamo Missions pending motion for us to take judicial notice of Rocketts new suit.
Per Curiam:*
FN* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.