Mandamus as a Check on Ultra Vires Reopening of Moot Cases under Rule 60(b)(6)

Introduction

In In re: Gary Westcott, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed a novel procedural maneuver by which a district court attempted to reopen a long-dormant death-penalty challenge. Thirteen years after Louisiana death-row inmates filed suit contesting the State’s lethal injection protocol—and three years after that suit was dismissed as moot for lack of drugs—the district court invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to revive the case and allow a challenge to Louisiana’s newly adopted nitrogen hypoxia protocol. Louisiana officials petitioned this Court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the district court had no jurisdiction to reopen a moot case. The Fifth Circuit granted mandamus, directing the district court to vacate its order and underscoring that Rule 60(b)(6) does not authorize reactivation of a case dismissed for mootness.

This decision clarifies the limits of Rule 60(b)(6), reinforces the jurisdictional prohibition on adjudicating moot controversies, and reaffirms mandamus as an extraordinary remedy to confine lower courts to lawful exercise of jurisdiction. The case arose between Petitioners Gary Westcott (Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections) and Darrel Vannoy (Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary) and death-row inmates including Jessie Hoffman.

Summary of the Judgment

The Fifth Circuit unanimously granted Louisiana’s petition for mandamus relief. It held that (1) Petitioners had no other adequate remedy because an appeal would come too late to prevent the indignity of litigating a moot suit; (2) Petitioners’ right to relief was “clear and indisputable” given that the district court’s use of Rule 60(b)(6) to reopen a fully moot case amounted to an ultra vires act; and (3) mandamus was appropriate because the case concerned a matter of high state interest—namely, the administration of capital punishment—and risked federal intrusion on state sovereignty.

The Court directed the district court to vacate its February 21, 2025 order reopening the suit and to deny the Rule 60(b)(6) motion. A concurring opinion stressed the importance of judicial modesty and appellate oversight when a district judge attempts to expand its own power. The dissent argued that the suit was not moot, that mandamus was unnecessary because ordinary appeal was available, and that Rule 60(b)(6) equity demands relief in extraordinary circumstances.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) – outlines the three prerequisites for mandamus relief.
Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for N.D. Cal., 426 U.S. 394 (1976) – emphasizes that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy.
In re Volkswagen of America, 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008 en banc) – recognized mandamus to correct venue defects.
Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (1967) – highlights mandamus to confine inferior courts to lawful jurisdiction.
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) – confirms ultra vires acts when a court lacks jurisdiction.
Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, 592 U.S. 279 (2021) – affirms that moot claims cannot be adjudicated.
Ex parte Peru, 318 U.S. 578 (1943) – underscores mandamus in matters of “public importance and exceptional character.”
Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. 119 (2019) – affirms deference to state execution procedures.

Legal Reasoning

First, the Court found no adequate remedy short of mandamus. An appeal from final judgment would come too late to prevent the “indignity” of litigating moot claims and the “prejudice” of venue or jurisdictional defects already inflicted. Mandamus must step in to preserve the integrity of the process.

Second, Petitioners’ right was clear and indisputable. The district court’s reopening of a suit it had previously—and correctly—dismissed as moot exceeded its authority. As the Supreme Court has emphasized, a court has no business “pronounc[ing] upon the meaning or the constitutionality” of law if it lacks Article III jurisdiction. Rule 60(b)(6) cannot cure a jurisdictional defect where no live case or controversy exists.

Third, mandamus was appropriate given the high state interest in administering capital punishment and the risk of federal-state conflict if district courts could routinely revive moot suits. Disturbing the finality of judgments in this area would disrupt the separation of powers and invite federal overreach into core state functions.

Impact

This decision will guide lower courts in handling post-judgment motions. District courts may not use Rule 60(b)(6) to circumvent the mootness doctrine; litigants must file new actions to challenge new protocols. The ruling reaffirms the limited scope of Rule 60(b), underscores the finality of judgments, and cements mandamus as a vital tool to police jurisdictional and venue excesses. It also signals to state officials that federal courts will not second-guess legislative changes to execution methods unless and until a proper suit is filed.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Mootness: A case is moot when the underlying controversy has disappeared and a court can no longer grant effective relief. Moot cases must be dismissed.
Rule 60(b)(6): Allows courts to relieve a party from a final judgment for “any other reason that justifies relief,” but only in extraordinary circumstances and never to resurrect a moot case.
Writ of Mandamus: An “extraordinary remedy” requiring (1) no adequate alternative, (2) a clear and indisputable right, and (3) appropriate discretion. It compels a lower court to act—or refrain from acting—when it has exceeded its jurisdiction.
Ultra Vires Act: Any judicial act beyond a court’s legitimate power—such as adjudicating a moot dispute—is void because it violates Article III limits.

Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit’s ruling in In re: Gary Westcott establishes an important procedural precedent: district courts cannot employ Rule 60(b)(6) to reopen cases that were correctly dismissed as moot. Any challenge to a new execution protocol must be brought in a fresh action. By granting mandamus, the Court reinforced the finality of judgments, the integrity of the jurisdictional limits set by Article III, and the proper role of appellate courts in correcting lower-court overreach. This decision will shape the litigation of death-penalty protocols and strengthen the separation of powers between district courts and state legislatures.