claim under the FMLA was valid. Resolution of this issue will have no coercive effect on the legal rights or obligations of either party. It is true that Prier’s employment with the Sheriffs Office as a deputy is dependent on her ability to obtain certification as a law enforcement officer. However, a declaratory judgment by this court that Prier is able to carry a firearm may provide Prier with the opportunity for reinstatement, but will not provide Prier with a legal basis to demand reinstatement, or require the Sheriffs Office to change its behavior in any way toward Prier. Moreover, Prier has not demonstrated a good chance of being likewise injured in the future: Indeed, she has dismissed her claim to having been injured at all. See Facio v. Jones, 929 F.2d 541, 544 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). As such, a declaratory judgment in favor of
holding that plaintiff cannot maintain an independent declaratory judgment action unless he or she can demonstrate a good chance of being likewise injured in the future holding that where the question to be resolved in the declaratory judgment action will be decided in a pending action it is inappropriate to grant a declaratory judgment holding that an injured party in an underlying tort action was not a necessary party in an action by an insurer for declaratory judgment of nonliability where the injured person had not obtained judgment against the insured holding that the injured party had standing to appeal the declaratory judgment in favor of the insurance company and noting that it was decisive to the holding that dairyland named the injured appellants in its declaratory judgment action holding that no person can commence or maintain an action in a court of record as agent for another unless he is a regularly licensed attorney