Case: 18-11542 Date Filed: 03/13/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 18-11542
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 5:18-cv-00111-TES
RODNEY MICHAEL MCCOLLIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
VENDOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT,
Authorized Agent for the Secretary of Veteran Affairs,
JOHN AND OR JANE DOES,
Unknown Investors and Agents,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Georgia
________________________
(March 13, 2019)
Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, BRANCH, and JULIE CARNES, Circuit
Judges.
Case: 18-11542 Date Filed: 03/13/2019 Page: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
In this interlocutory appeal, Rodney McColligan, proceeding pro se,
contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motions to
enjoin Vendor Resource Management from evicting him from his former property,
which was sold in a foreclosure sale after he defaulted on his mortgage.
I.
In August 2007 McColligan received a $96,000 loan from Market Street
Mortgage Corporation. To receive that loan, he executed a security deed giving
Market Street a mortgage on his property in Houston County, Georgia. Market
Street assigned the mortgage to the Georgia Housing and Finance Authority, which
entitled Georgia Housing to sell McColligan’s property through a foreclosure sale
if McColligan defaulted on his loan. He did. After an April 2017 foreclosure sale,
the United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs obtained the rights to the property.
When McColligan stayed on the property, the Secretary had Vendor Resource
Management initiate a proceeding in Georgia state court to evict McColligan. The
court granted Vendor a writ of possession, which allowed Vendor to evict
McColligan.
In March 2018 McColligan responded by filing this suit against Vendor to
obtain, among other things, $1,000,000 in damages. The complaint alleges that
Vendor violated the Truth in Lending Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices
2
Case: 18-11542 Date Filed: 03/13/2019 Page: 3 of 5
Act. On the same day, McColligan filed a motion requesting a preliminary
injunction and other equitable relief to prevent Vendor from executing the writ of
possession and, as a result, evicting him from the property. A week later he filed
another motion seeking to enjoin Vendor from evicting him.
The district court issued an order denying both of McColligan’s motions,
finding that the Anti-Injunction Act barred McColligan’s requests for equitable
relief. 1 After the district court issued its order, Vendor executed the writ of
possession and evicted McColligan from the property. This is McColligan’s
interlocutory appeal from the denial of equitable relief. (It does not involve his
request for monetary damages.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
II.
Article III of the Constitution limits our jurisdiction to the consideration of
“cases” and “controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “The doctrine of mootness is
derived from this limitation because an action that is moot cannot be characterized
as an active case or controversy.” Adler v. Duval Cty. Sch. Bd.,
112 F.3d 1475,
1477 (11th Cir. 1997). “[I]t is incumbent upon this court to consider issues of
mootness . . . and, absent an applicable exception to the mootness doctrine, to
1
“Under the Anti–Injunction Act, an injunction halting a state court proceeding is
inappropriate, ‘except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of
its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.’” Burr & Forman v. Blair,
470 F.3d
1019, 1027 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2283).
3
Case: 18-11542 Date Filed: 03/13/2019 Page: 4 of 5
dismiss any appeal that no longer presents a viable case or controversy.” Hunt v.
Aimco Props., L.P.,
814 F.3d 1213, 1220 (11th Cir. 2016).
Because equitable relief is “a prospective remedy,” a “plaintiff’s claims for
equitable relief become moot” when that relief can no longer “prevent the
defendant’s future conduct from causing future injury.”
Adler, 112 F.3d at 1477.
That is because the plaintiff would “no longer need[ ] protection from [the] future
injury.”
Id. So, for example, a case in which a plaintiff requests only equitable
relief to prevent a pending eviction becomes moot when he is evicted. See A.B. ex
rel. Kehoe v. Hous. Auth. of S. Bend,
683 F.3d 844, 845 (7th Cir. 2012) (“Once the
[eviction] occurs, any possible use for a preliminary injunction is expired.”); cf.
United States v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr.,
778 F.3d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 2015)
(“An appeal is moot when, by virtue of an intervening event, a court of appeals
cannot grant any effectual relief whatever in favor of the appellant.”) (quotation
marks omitted).
McColligan’s claims for equitable relief to prevent Vendor from evicting
him are moot. Vendor evicted McColligan, which means that equitable relief can
no longer prevent that conduct. See
Adler, 112 F.3d at 1477. And because no
exception to the mootness doctrine applies, this appeal is not an active case or
controversy. See
Hunt, 814 F.3d at 1220. As a result, we lack jurisdiction to
consider it.
4
Case: 18-11542 Date Filed: 03/13/2019 Page: 5 of 5
III.
The general rule is that, “when a case becomes moot after the district court
enters its judgment but before this court has issued a decision, we are divested of
jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal and vacate the underlying judgment.”
Brooks v. Ga. State Bd. of Elections,
59 F.3d 1114, 1122 (11th Cir. 1995)
(quotation marks and brackets omitted). But “[i]n the case of interlocutory
appeals, the usual practice is just to dismiss the appeal as moot and not vacate the
order appealed from.”
Id. (quotation marks omitted). We follow that practice
here and, as a result, DISMISS this interlocutory appeal as moot, leave
undisturbed the order appealed from, and REMAND the case to the district court
for further proceedings.2
2
See
Brooks, 59 F.3d at 1122 (“We emphasize that our dismissal of this appeal as moot
is necessarily limited to the specific order before us . . . . Still pending before the district court is
the broader issue of the merits of [McColligan’s underlying] claim.”).
5
