Lashawn Jones v. Ocean County Division of Child ( 2020 )

CLD-259 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 19-1509
___________
LASHAWN JONES,
Appellant
v.
OCEAN COUNTY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND
PERMANENCY; SUPERIOR COURT OF OCEAN COUNTY
NEW JERSEY; HON. ROBERT E. BRENNAN, J.S.C.;
JUDGE STEPHEN J. BERNSTEIN, Monmouth County
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. Civil No. 3-18-cv-11528)
District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
August 15, 2019
Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: February 19, 2020)
__________
OPINION*
__________
PER CURIAM
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Lashawn Jones appeals from an order denying his motion for a preliminary
injunction. We will dismiss this appeal as moot.
Jones is a New Jersey state prisoner. He filed a federal complaint raising claims
regarding visitation with his son J.G. After a New Jersey state court issued an order
suspending those visits, Jones filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and apparently
sought an order directing the visits to resume. The District Court denied that motion, and
Jones filed this appeal.
Ordinarily, we would have jurisdiction to review the District Court’s denial of
Jones’s motion for a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). After Jones
filed this appeal, however, the District Court entered an order dismissing his amended
complaint. The District Court dismissed most of Jones’s claims with prejudice, but it
dismissed some of his claims without prejudice and with leave to further amend. Jones
did not amend within the time permitted and instead filed a second appeal at C.A. No. 19-
2021. That appeal is not presently before us.
By filing that appeal instead of amending within the time permitted, however,
Jones rendered the District Court’s order of dismissal final by standing on his complaint.
See Hoffman v. Nordic Nats., Inc., 837 F.3d 272, 279 & n.49 (3d Cir. 2016). And the
District Court’s final order of dismissal renders moot this appeal from its order denying
Jones’s motion for a preliminary injunction. See Doe ex rel. Doe v. Governor of N.J.,
2
783 F.3d 150, 151 n.1 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Hankins v. Temple Univ. (Health Sciences
Ctr.), 829 F.2d 437, 438 n.1 (3d Cir. 1987)).
Thus, we will dismiss this appeal as moot. See id. Jones’s motion for
appointment of counsel on appeal is denied. To the extent that Jones’s filings can be
construed to request any other forms of relief, those requests are denied as well.
3