Michael Bush, et al. v. Linda Fantasia, et al.

Town administrators imposed two distinct face mask mandates that included various secular exemp­ tions. Certain aggrieved residents sued pro se for failure to accommodate their disabilities and religions, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief in specific amounts. The Town moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss for failure to state a claim eligible for relief. The District Court instead sua sponte dis­ missed the entire lawsuit on the grounds of legal stand­ ing and mootness, while denying the pro se plaintiffs the hearing they requested and opportunity to amend their original complaint. The questions presented are:

1. When plaintiffs are pro se laypeople, which, if any, of the following are permissible conditions of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6): a) the dismissal is sua sponte, b) the plaintiffs are denied their requested hearing, or c) the plaintiffs are denied opportunity to amend their complaint in response to the court’s identification of deficiencies?

2. When a court dismisses a case as moot, which, if any, of the following conditions are permissible: a) the defendants stated they may reengage in the challenged conduct, b) the court draws inferences in favor of the defendants, c) the plaintiffs sought monetary damages, d) the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, or e) the plaintiffs sought declaratory relief?