
    Jerroll SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Kelly Sennholz, Plaintiff, v. Joseph A. BIDEN; Members of the U.S. House of Representatives (144th Congress); Members of the United States Senate; Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America; Mike Pence, Vice President of the United States of America; Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-1043
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    Filed May 3, 2017
    Jerroll Sanders, Pro Se
    Kelly Sennholz, Pro Se
    Before KELLY, MURPHY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
    
    
      
       After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
    
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

Paul J. Kelly, Jr., Circuit Judge

Plaintiff-Appellant Jerroll Sanders and Plaintiff Kelly Sennholz filed a pro se emergency petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to enjoin the results of the November 2016 elections on the basis that Russia interfered with those elections. 1 R. 12-13. After “setting aside questions of jurisdiction, venue, and service” as well as standing, the district court sua sponte dismissed the action with prejudice, commenting that it was unaware of any “report or evidence that Russia or any other foreign power actually altered votes.” Id. at 67.

Ms. Sanders appeals from the district court’s sua sponte dismissal of the action with prejudice. Suffice it to say that the various events sought to be enjoined have already occurred, thereby rendering the case moot. Citizen Ctr. v. Gessler, 770 F.3d 900, 907 (10th Cir. 2014). Because the case became moot on appeal, we dismiss the appeal and instruct the district court to vacate its judgment and dismiss the action without prejudice. See McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 100 F.3d 863, 868 (10th Cir. 1996). 
      
       This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     