Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-18-11388/USCOURTS-ca11-18-11388-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 

---

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 18-11388

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cv-00128-MW-CAS

JAMES MICHAEL HAND, 

JOSEPH JAMES GALASSO, 

HAROLD W. GIRCSIS, JR., 

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL SMITH, 

WILLIAM BASS, 

JERMAINE JOHNEKINS, 

YRAIDA LEONIDES GUANIPA, 

JAMES LARRY EXLINE, 

VIRGINIA KAY ATKINS,

 Plaintiffs - Appellees,

versus

RON DESANTIS, in his official capacity as Governor of Florida and member of 

the State of Florida’s Executive Clemency Board, 

ASHLEY MOODY, in her official capacity as the Attorney General of Florida and 

member of the Executive Clemency Board, 

NICOLE FRIED, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Agriculture and 

member of the Executive Clemency Board, 

JIMMY PATRONIS, in his official capacity as Chief Financial Officer and 

member of the Executive Clemency Board,

 Defendants - Appellants.

USCA11 Case: 18-11388 Date Filed: 01/10/2020 Page: 1 of 5
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

________________________

(January 10, 2020)

Before ED CARNES, Chief Judge, BRANCH, Circuit Judge, and GAYLES,*

District Judge.

BRANCH, Circuit Judge: 

The Executive Clemency Board of the State of Florida (the “Board”) appeals 

the district court’s orders (1) denying in part its motion for summary judgment; and

(2) permanently enjoining Florida’s former system for re-enfranchising convicted 

felons. James Hand and eight other convicted felons (collectively, “Hand”) 

asserted that the former system—which involved state constitutional, statutory, and 

regulatory provisions—facially violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment

rights. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted Hand’s 

motion on three of four counts,

1 and in a separate order issued permanent 

injunctions prohibiting the Board from enforcing the then-current vote-restoration 

* Honorable Darrin P. Gayles, United States District Judge for the Southern District of 

Florida, sitting by designation.

1 The district court granted Hand’s motion and denied the Board’s motion with respect to 

Count One (unfettered discretion in the re-enfranchisement process violates the First 

Amendment), Count Two (unfettered discretion violates the Fourteenth Amendment), and Count 

Three (lack of time limits in processing the re-enfranchisement petitions violates the First 

Amendment). The district court denied Hand’s motion for summary judgment and granted the 

Board’s motion for summary judgment on Count Four (challenging the five- and seven-year 

waiting periods before applying for restoration of voting rights). Count Four is not before us in 

this appeal.

USCA11 Case: 18-11388 Date Filed: 01/10/2020 Page: 2 of 5
3

system and ending all vote-restoration processes, inter alia.

2

 After granting a

motion for stay, we heard oral argument as to the merits of the Board’s appeal. On 

November 6, 2018, Florida voters amended their state constitution by referendum 

vote as it concerns the re-enfranchisement of convicted felons.3

 And on July 1,

2019, Florida’s legislature revised its statutory scheme for re-enfranchisement,

4

thus setting into motion a new system for vote restoration. Under the new system, 

Hand and his fellow plaintiffs claim they are eligible to seek restoration of their 

voting rights.

We have jurisdiction to reach the merits of a case only where there is an 

active controversy. “The rule in federal cases is that an actual controversy must be 

extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed.” Steffel 

v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 459 n.10 (1974). “If events that occur subsequent to 

the filing of a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to give the 

2 Additionally, the district court directed the Board to promulgate new criteria for voterestoration within thirty days of the court’s order and reconsider applicants who had been denied 

restoration since the time of the court’s first order on cross-motions for summary judgment.

3 Fla. Const. art. VI, § 4(a) (amended 2018) (“[A]ny disqualification from voting arising 

from a felony conviction shall terminate and voting rights shall be restored upon completion of 

all terms of sentence including parole or probation.”).

4 The legislature amended Fla. Stat. § 944.292(1) by adding the following sentence: 

“Notwithstanding the suspension of civil rights, such a convicted person may obtain restoration 

of his or her voting rights pursuant to s. 4, Art. VI of the State Constitution and s. 98.0751.” The 

legislature also enacted Fla. Stat. § 98.0751, which in the part relevant here, subsection (1), 

states: “A person who has been disqualified from voting based on a felony conviction for an 

offense other than murder or a felony sexual offense must have such disqualification terminated 

and his or her voting rights restored pursuant to s. 4, Art. VI of the State Constitution upon the 

completion of all terms of his or her sentence, including parole or probation.”

USCA11 Case: 18-11388 Date Filed: 01/10/2020 Page: 3 of 5
4

plaintiff or appellant meaningful relief, then the case is moot and must be 

dismissed.” World Wide Supply OU v. Quail Cruises Ship Mgmt., 802 F.3d 1255, 

1259 (11th Cir. 2015) (quoting Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th 

Cir. 2001)).

In light of the changes to Florida’s voter re-enfranchisement system since 

this case began, we no longer have the ability to accord Hand meaningful relief

from the former system which he challenged. In supplemental briefing following

oral argument, both parties concede that each individual plaintiff is eligible to seek 

re-enfranchisement under Florida’s new system. Thus, no plaintiff requires relief 

from Florida’s former re-enfranchisement system. We therefore hold that this case 

is moot.

Accordingly, the district court’s order on cross-motions for summary 

judgment dated February 1, 2018 is VACATED as to Counts One, Two, and 

Three. The district court’s order directing entry of judgment dated March 27, 2018 

is hereby VACATED in its entirety.5

 This case is hereby REMANDED with 

5 Hand requests we vacate our prior stay-panel opinion, Hand v. Scott, 888 F.3d 1206

(11th Cir. 2018). The Supreme Court in United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39–41

(1950), held that a circuit court should vacate as moot a district court’s order where the case 

becomes moot pending appeal. Such vacatur is necessary, the Court reasoned, in order to 

prevent a district court’s judgment from “spawning any legal consequences.” Id. at 41; see 

generally U.S. Bancorp Mortg. Co. v. Bonner Mall P’ship, 513 U.S. 18 (1994) (addressing 

whether “appellate courts in the federal system should vacate civil judgments of subordinate 

courts in cases that are settled after appeal is filed”) (emphasis added). But Munsingwear does 

not address what a circuit court must do with its own prior stay order when a case has become 

moot. Hand cites to several of our cases which he asserts are on point but which are not. See 

USCA11 Case: 18-11388 Date Filed: 01/10/2020 Page: 4 of 5
5

instructions to DISMISS for mootness.

Ethredge v. Hail, 996 F.2d 1173, 1177 (11th Cir. 1993) (vacating a district court’s judgment); 

Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. Kaye, 256 F.3d 1251, 1258–59 (11th Cir. 2001) (same); Atlanta Gas 

Light Co. v. F.E.R.C., 140 F.3d 1392, 1404 (11th Cir. 1998) (vacating a federal agency’s orders); 

Vann v. Citicorp Sav. of Ill., 891 F.2d 1507, 1509 (11th Cir. 1990) (vacating a prior jurisdictionpanel order where the merits panel made an opposite determination on the jurisdictional 

question). The Fourth Circuit, however, addressed this issue squarely in F.T.C. v. Food Town 

Stores, Inc., 547 F.2d 247, 249 (4th Cir. 1977), and expressly declined to vacate its own prior

order granting a stay after the case became moot. The court reasoned that “[a]n order granting a 

stay . . . is not a final adjudication of the merits of the appeal,” and therefore it “has no res 

judicata effect and the rationale of the Munsingwear doctrine thus is inapplicable.” Id. at 249. 

We find the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning persuasive and hereby adopt it and decline to vacate our 

prior stay-panel opinion. By contrast, the Tenth Circuit in McClendon v. City of Albuquerque, 

100 F.3d 863, 868 n.1 (10th Cir. 1996), vacated its own prior order granting a stay without 

adequate explanation and is thus unpersuasive. As well, the D.C. Circuit’s action in United 

States v. Schaffer, 240 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (en banc), is inapposite as that court vacated

prior merits-panel judgments which had res judicata effect.

USCA11 Case: 18-11388 Date Filed: 01/10/2020 Page: 5 of 5