granted. Continental Casualty Co. v. Fibreboard Corp., 4 F.3d 111, 118 (9th Cir.1993). “The question is not whether the precise relief sought at the time the application for an injunction was filed is still available ... [but] whether there can be any effective relief.” Northwest Envtl. Defense Ctr. v. Gordon, 849 F.2d 1241, 1244-45 (9th Cir.1988). The Board correctly asserts that the complaint seeks an injunction barring the Board from proceeding with the redetermi- nation hearing. However, the complaint also seeks “[a]ny other relief in law or in equity that the Court deems appropriate.” Thus, although the district court cannot enjoin proceedings that have already occurred, it still has the power to attempt to fashion an effective remedy to redress the alleged violations. Id. at 1245 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Taxpayers’ action is not
holding that plaintiffs are not required  to have asked for the precise form of relief that the district court may ultimately grant holding that when a court of appeals has jurisdiction on interlocutory appeal the scope of appellate review is not limited to the precise question certified by the district court because the district courts order not the certified question is brought before the court holding a sentencing court is not required to grant probation holding that although that the district court erred in finding that plaintiffs lacked standing the appellate court may nonetheless proceed to consider the district courts determination that plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted holding that exhaustion was not required because the plaintiff had moved outside the school district and the administrative officer consequently lacked the authority to grant relief