Case: 19-12914 Date Filed: 11/19/2019 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-12914
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-22149-RNS
DIMITRI PATTERSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MIAMI DADE COUNTY,
RICK SCOTT,
(RS), a Junior U.S. Senator,
BETH BLOOM,
District Judge for the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, etc.,
RODOLFO A. RUIZ,
District Judge for the U .S. District Court Southern District of Florida , etc.,
MARCIA G. COOKE,
District Judge for the U .S. District Court Southern District of Florida, etc.,
CHRIS M. MCALILEY,
Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida, etc.,
CECILIA M. ALTONAGA,
Magistrate Judge for the U .S. District Court Southern District of Florida, etc.,
PATRICK A. WHITE,
Magistrate Judge for the U .S. District Court Southern District of Florida, etc.,
LISSETTE M. REID,
Magistrate Judge for the U .S. District Court Southern District of Florida, etc.,
DANIEL JUNIOR,
Case: 19-12914 Date Filed: 11/19/2019 Page: 2 of 5
Director of Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 19, 2019)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Dimitri Patterson, a pro se Florida prisoner, appeals the district court’s
denial of his emergency motion for a preliminary injunction against Miami-Dade
County; Daniel Junior, Director of Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation;
and the State of Florida, its officers, municipalities, and judicial branches (“state
entities and officials”). We dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
Patterson filed a complaint against seven federal judges; Daniel Junior;
Miami-Dade County; and the former Florida governor, United States Senator Rick
Scott. Patterson alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3), 1986; Bivens; 1 and the
Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments. He also alleged some of the
defendants committed fraud. Patterson stated that he is currently being unlawfully
1
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388,
91 S. Ct.
1999 (1971).
2
Case: 19-12914 Date Filed: 11/19/2019 Page: 3 of 5
detained in Florida by Miami-Dade County. He requested a jury trial, as well as
$242 million dollars, punitive damages, and a permanent injunction against all the
defendants.
The next day, Patterson filed an emergency motion for a preliminary
injunction. Two days later, he filed a near-identical copy of his motion, correcting
a previously missing page and moving the court to enjoin the state entities and
officials from acting in concert to bring about his unlawful detainment and
violating his constitutional right. Patterson alleged that the state entities and
officials violated his civil rights in their “prosecution, stalking, [and] harassment”
of him, they had illegally detained him for a direct criminal contempt conviction,
and they currently have him illegally in pre-trial detention on state charges.
Patterson argued that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his claim because
the state entities and officials had knowledge of or directly participated in a
discriminatory conspiracy against Patterson, and they failed to prevent it.
Patterson asserted that, because he would remain in the state’s custody, the officers
would continue to violate his civil liberties and that the loss of liberties, even for a
minimal period of time, constitutes irreparable harm. In balancing the harm to
Patterson against the possible burden on government, Patterson argued that the
officials would face no measurable burden. Finally, Patterson argued that the
protection of citizens weighs heavily in the public interest and granting the
3
Case: 19-12914 Date Filed: 11/19/2019 Page: 4 of 5
preliminary injunction would not adversely impact the public interest.
On May 30, 2019, in a paperless order entered on the docket, the district
court denied Patterson’s emergency motion, determining “that an emergency
circumstance is not present.” The court noted that it construed Patterson’s second
emergency motion as an amendment to his initial motion and denied his initial
motion as moot. Patterson did not file an interlocutory appeal of this order. On
June 18, the district court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims
against the judges; the court struck the claims against the others and gave Patterson
until June 26 to file an amended complaint. On June 27, when Patterson failed to
file an amended complaint, the district court entered an order dismissing without
prejudice all claims against Scott, Miami-Dade County, and Junior.
Patterson appealed following the June 27 order dismissing his case. On
appeal, Patterson argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his
emergency motion for a preliminary injunction because the court found that no
emergency existed.
II. DISCUSSION
We first address issues of jurisdiction, which we review de novo.
Birmingham Fire Fighters Ass’n 117 v. City of Birmingham,
603 F.3d 1248, 1254
(11th Cir. 2010). Federal courts lack the authority to give opinions on moot
questions. Zinni v. ER Solutions,
692 F.3d 1162, 1166 (11th Cir. 2012).
4
Case: 19-12914 Date Filed: 11/19/2019 Page: 5 of 5
Intervening events that resolve the issues in the injunction, such as the issuance of
a final judgment, affect the appealability of a preliminary injunction because the
injunction merges with the final judgment. See Birmingham Fire Fighters Ass’n
117, 603 F.3d at 1254-55 (dismissing an interlocutory appeal of a preliminary
injunction because the injunction had merged with the final order issued by the
lower court). Therefore, once the district court enters a final judgment, the
preliminary injunction becomes moot and is no longer the proper basis for an
appeal. Burton v. Georgia,
953 F.2d 1266, 1272 n.9 (11th Cir. 1992).
We need not consider Patterson’s appeal of his denied motion for a
preliminary injunction because the issue is moot. The district court denied
Patterson’s motion for a preliminary injunction; Patterson did not file an
interlocutory appeal of that order. When the district court dismissed the case, the
denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction merged with the final order. See
Birmingham Fire Fighters Ass’n
117, 603 F.3d at 1254-55. The only ruling at
issue in this is appeal, the district court’s denial of Patterson’s motion for a
preliminary injunction, is moot; accordingly, Patterson’s appeal is DISMISSED.
5
