[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-11747

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 5:19-cv-01597-LCB

DEANDRE RUSSELL, 

CONSTANCE RUSSELL, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

 versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

STATE OF ALABAMA, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

________________________

(February 1, 2021)

USCA11 Case: 20-11747 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 1 of 9
2

Before JILL PRYOR, EDMONDSON, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Plaintiffs DeAndre’ and Constance Russell, proceeding pro se,

1 appeal the 

district court’s dismissal -- for lack of standing -- of their amended2 complaint for 

declaratory and injunctive relief. No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.

Plaintiffs filed this civil action against the United States, the State of 

Alabama, and members of the United States Congress and the Alabama 

Legislature. Briefly stated, Plaintiffs challenge as unconstitutional the Federal 

Judiciary Act of 1925 and its amendments (“the Judiciary Act”). Plaintiffs say the 

Judiciary Act permits appellate courts to “evade review of . . . important cases or 

controversies” by issuing what Plaintiffs call a “no opinion ruling”: a decision 

affirming a lower court judgment or denying a writ of certiorari without discussion. 

1 We construe liberally pro se pleadings. Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 

(11th Cir. 1998).

2 Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in September 2019. On 11 October 2019, Plaintiffs 

moved -- pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1) -- for leave to amend their complaint to “present a 

more definite and precise statement of clarity.” On 23 October (fewer than 21 days after service 

of process) Plaintiffs filed a “Motion to Clarify and Summarize their Complaint with a More 

Definite Statement.” In their 23 October filing, Plaintiffs summarized and elaborated on the 

claims presented in their initial complaint. The district court construed Plaintiffs’ 23 October 

filing as a supplement to the initial complaint -- filed as a matter of course under Rule 15(a)(1) --

and thus deemed as moot Plaintiffs’ 11 October motion for leave to amend. 

USCA11 Case: 20-11747 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 2 of 9
3

Plaintiffs contend these “no opinion rulings” violate due process because -- in 

denying claims or review without opinion -- appellate courts decide impermissibly 

what cases are of public importance and deprive litigants of a meaningful 

opportunity to have their claims “heard and decided.” By passing the Judiciary 

Act, Plaintiffs say Congress violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Articles I, II, and III of the 

United States Constitution, the Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection 

Clause. 

About standing, Plaintiffs alleged they suffered injuries when their 

purportedly meritorious claims were denied without opinion by federal and state 

appellate courts. Plaintiffs say the United States Supreme Court twice denied 

without opinion petitions for certiorari filed by DeAndre’ and that the Alabama 

Supreme Court denied without opinion a petition for review filed by Constance. 

As relief, Plaintiffs sought (1) a declaration that the Judiciary Act is

unconstitutional; (2) an injunction enjoining federal and state appellate courts from 

issuing “no opinion rulings”; (3) a temporary stay in Plaintiffs’ 2011 and 2014 

bankruptcy proceedings and in “all lawsuits and State Court proceedings filed by” 

Plaintiffs; (4) attorney’s fees and costs; and (5) other relief deemed “just and 

proper.” Plaintiffs asked for no monetary damages or relief from an existing 

judgment of any court. 

USCA11 Case: 20-11747 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 3 of 9
4

The district court determined that Plaintiffs lacked standing and, thus, 

granted the government’s motion to dismiss. The district court found Plaintiffs had 

alleged no concrete and particularized injury and, instead, asserted only a 

generalized grievance about the government that was insufficient to establish 

Article III standing. This appeal followed.

Supplement to the Appellate Record:

As an initial matter, Plaintiffs seek to supplement the appellate record with 

documents -- including the complained-of “no opinion rulings” -- filed in the civil 

actions underlying Plaintiffs’ complaint. We have said that we will “rarely 

supplement the record to include material that was not before the district court, but

we have the equitable power to do so if it is in the interests of justice” and we will 

make that determination on a case-by-case basis. See Schwartz v. Millon Air, Inc., 

341 F.3d 1220, 1225 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003). Even when the additional information is 

not dispositive, “we may allow supplementation in the aid of making an informed 

decision.” Id. We may also take judicial notice of a document filed in another 

federal or state court “to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.” 

See United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994); Lozman v. City of 

USCA11 Case: 20-11747 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 4 of 9
5

Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 1066, 1075 n.9 (11th Cir. 2013) (taking judicial notice of 

court documents filed in a state eviction action); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) (“The court 

may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . 

can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot 

reasonably be questioned.”).

Plaintiffs’ pro se complaint references more than one proceeding in which 

Plaintiffs say they were denied relief without opinion but lists only one identifiable 

case number. Because the additional information Plaintiffs now seek to add to the 

record will aid our decision-making -- and because we may take judicial notice of 

the fact of the issuance of the pertinent court orders -- we will allow Plaintiffs to 

supplement the record on appeal. 

Reading Plaintiffs’ complaint together with Plaintiffs’ supplemental record 

filings, Plaintiffs have identified three civil actions underlying their due process 

claims: (1) a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding filed by DeAndre’ in 2011; (2) a 

2013 civil action filed by DeAndre’ against his creditor, his bankruptcy lawyer, 

and the bankruptcy trustees in the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of Alabama; and (3) a 2005 garnishment action filed against Constance in 

Alabama state court. In each case, DeAndre’ or Constance ultimately petitioned 

the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. And, in each case, the 

USCA11 Case: 20-11747 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 5 of 9
6

Supreme Court denied certiorari without opinion. See Russell v. First Resol. Inv. 

Corp., 140 S. Ct. 213 (2019), reh’g denied, 140 S. Ct. 633 (2019); Russell v. 

Redstone Fed. Credit Union, 139 S. Ct. 457 (2018), reh’g denied, 139 S. Ct. 1245 

(2019); Russell v. Geddes, 571 U.S. 835 (2013). The most recent of these denials 

was issued in December 2019: before the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ 

complaint in April 2020 and before this appeal was filed. 

Standing:

We review de novo a dismissal for lack of standing. Scott v. Taylor, 470 

F.3d 1014, 1017 (11th Cir. 2006). 

“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing” 

standing. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992).3

 To establish 

Article III standing, a plaintiff must establish three elements: (1) he has suffered an 

injury-in-fact, (2) a causal connection between the injury and the complained-of 

conduct, and (3) the injury is capable of being redressed by the court. Id. at 560-

61. To show an injury-in-fact, a plaintiff must demonstrate that he suffered “an 

3 Contrary to Plaintiffs’ contention on appeal, a ruling about standing may be made at all stages 

of litigation, including at the pleading stage, the summary judgment stage, or at trial. See Lujan, 

504 U.S. at 561-62. 

USCA11 Case: 20-11747 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 6 of 9
7

invasion of a legally protected interest” that is “concrete and particularized” and 

“actual or imminent.” Id. at 560. 

In addition to showing a past injury, a plaintiff seeking prospective

injunctive or declaratory relief must also “show a sufficient likelihood that he will 

be affected by the allegedly unlawful conduct in the future.” Houston v. Marod 

Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1328-29 (11th Cir. 2013) (injunctive relief); 

Malowney v. Fed. Collection Deposit Grp., 193 F.3d 1342, 1347 (11th Cir. 1999) 

(declaratory relief). In other words, a plaintiff has standing to seek prospective 

relief only if he can show “a real and immediate -- as opposed to a merely 

conjectural or hypothetical -- threat of future injury.” Houston, 733 F.3d at 1329 

(emphasis in original); Malowney, 193 F.3d at 1347.

Construed liberally, Plaintiffs’ complaint might allege sufficiently a past 

injury. Plaintiffs contend that the Judiciary Act and the issuance of “no opinion 

rulings” violate due process. Plaintiffs further allege that they personally suffered 

a due process violation when their claims were denied without opinion by federal 

and state appellate courts. 

That Plaintiffs have alleged sufficiently a past injury is only the first step in 

our standing inquiry. Because Plaintiffs seek only prospective declaratory and 

USCA11 Case: 20-11747 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 7 of 9
8

injunctive relief,4 they must allege facts that also establish a “real and immediate” 

threat of future injury. Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy that burden. 

Never have Plaintiffs alleged that they are still at imminent risk of a future 

due process violation. The three civil actions underlying Plaintiffs’ complaint are 

already final: Plaintiffs thus face no threat of alleged future injury from the 

issuance of a “no opinion ruling” in those cases. Nor have Plaintiffs alleged that 

they have other pending lawsuits that might give rise to a reasonable expectation 

that Plaintiffs are likely to be subject to future injury from the issuance of a “no 

opinion ruling.”5

 

4 Plaintiffs sought no relief from an existing court judgment or damages for their alleged past 

injuries. Plaintiffs’ complaint included a request for a temporary stay in the then-unidentified 

underlying civil proceedings. Such relief was unavailable, however, because final judgment had 

already been entered in each of the three underlying proceedings before the district court 

rendered its decision. 

Plaintiffs’ complaint also asked for other relief “as the Court deems just and proper.” We do not, 

however -- for the purpose of our standing inquiry -- construe this language to encompass a 

request for damages or other relief from an existing judgment. We have said that the “mere 

incantation of such boilerplate language” cannot convert the nature of relief sought. See Rosen 

v. Cascade Int’l, 21 F.3d 1520, 1526 n.12 (11th Cir. 1994) (vacating a grant of a preliminary 

injunction when plaintiffs sought only money damages and other “just and proper” relief: asking 

for “just and proper” relief “does not convert a legal cause of action into a legitimate request for 

equitable relief.”). We have also stressed that if a plaintiff fails to satisfy his burden of alleging 

facts sufficient to establish Article III standing, “this court lacks the power to create jurisdiction 

by embellishing a deficient allegation of injury.” See Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199, 1206 

(11th Cir. 2006). Nor does the leniency we afford pro se pleadings give us “license to serve as 

de facto counsel for a party, or to rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an

action.” Campbell v. Air Jam., Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168-69 (11th Cir. 2014). 

5 In their September 2019 initial complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Constance had petitioned the 

United States Supreme Court for review of the Alabama Supreme Court’s “no opinion ruling.” 

USCA11 Case: 20-11747 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 8 of 9
9

Plaintiffs have alleged no “real or immediate” threat of future injury. 

Plaintiffs thus lack Article III standing to bring this action for prospective 

declaratory or injunctive relief. Cf. Malowney, 193 F.3d at 1348 (because 

plaintiffs showed no substantial likelihood of future injury, a declaration that the 

challenged statute “as applied in the past to these plaintiffs is unconstitutional 

would be nothing more than a gratuitous comment without any force or effect.” 

(quotation and alteration omitted)). We affirm the district court’s dismissal for 

lack of standing.

AFFIRMED.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari on 7 October 2019 (before Plaintiffs amended their 

complaint on 23 October) and denied rehearing on 9 December 2019. That lawsuit was done and 

was thus not pending when the district court dismissed for lack of standing. Article III’s case-orcontroversy requirement demands that standing “persist throughout all stages of litigation.” Va. 

House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill, 139 S. Ct. 1945, 1950-51 (2019). 

USCA11 Case: 20-11747 Date Filed: 02/01/2021 Page: 9 of 9