Rebecca Mitson v. Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •            Case: 12-13352   Date Filed: 12/26/2012   Page: 1 of 4
    [DO NOT PUBLISH]
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
    _____________
    No.12-13352
    Non-Argument Calendar
    _____________
    D. C. Docket No. 9:87-cv-12020-DMM
    REBECCA MITSON,
    MARILYN JONES,
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    ELIZABETH RUBINO, et al.,
    Plaintiffs,
    versus
    SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
    REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,
    SHEFFIELD V. KENYON,
    SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
    FAMILIES,
    Defendants-Third Party
    Plaintiffs-Appellees,
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Third Party Defendant.
    Case: 12-13352     Date Filed: 12/26/2012    Page: 2 of 4
    ______________
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    For Southern the District of Florida
    ______________
    (December 26, 2012)
    Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:
    As stated in Appellant, Irene Czajkowski’s (“Czajkowski”), appellate brief,
    the issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion
    in denying Czajkowski’s Motion to Reopen the Case of Mitson By and Through
    Jones v. Coler, 
    674 F. Supp. 851
     (S.D. Fla. 1987), in which the district court
    prohibited the State of Florida from counting as “income” unreimbursed medical
    expenses awarded under the Veterans Administration Improved Pension Benefits
    Program.
    In her suit, Czajkowski seeks to be appointed as a new class representative,
    and she seeks the district court’s assistance in enforcing the permanent injunction
    issued in Mitson.
    We review the denial of a motion to reopen a case for an abuse of discretion.
    See Jiang v. U. S. Att’y Gen., 
    568 F.3d 1252
    , 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (immigration
    2
    Case: 12-13352     Date Filed: 12/26/2012    Page: 3 of 4
    context). A district court “abuses its discretion when its equitable decision is based
    on an error of law or a clearly erroneous factual finding.” Labor/Community
    Strategy v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth., 
    564 F.3d 1115
    , 1119-20 (9th
    Cir. 2009); Kenney v. United States, 
    458 F.3d 1025
    , 1032 (9th Cir. 2006).
    After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that
    there is no abuse of discretion by the district court in failing to reopen the case and
    in denying Czajkowski’s right to intervene and enforce the permanent injunction.
    As the district court correctly held, “even if Czajkowski could be appointed class
    representative, she failed to establish that defendants are not in compliance with a
    permanent injunction issued in Mitson.” [R. Vol. 4 Doc. 194 at 2.] Moreover, the
    district court correctly found that Czajkowski’s grievances with the Department of
    Children and Families fell squarely outside the scope of the permanent injunction
    issued in Mitson. Because the 1987 order in Mitson did not address the subject of
    her claim, her motion to legally reopen and for a show cause order is legally
    insufficient. Additionally, we conclude from the record that the district court
    properly denied Czajkowski’s motion to intervene as a representative class plaintiff
    because the interest she wanted to assert fell outside the scope of the 1987 order in
    Mitson.
    3
    Case: 12-13352     Date Filed: 12/26/2012   Page: 4 of 4
    Accordingly, because we find no merit to any of the arguments Czajkowski
    makes in this appeal, we affirm the district court’s orders denying Czajkowski’s
    motion to reopen the case and denying Czajkowski’s motion to alter or amend the
    district court’s order denying the motion to reopen the case.
    AFFIRMED.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-13352

Judges: Dubina, Martin, Fay

Filed Date: 12/26/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024