F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT March 23, 20 05 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [P UBL ISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1155 6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ D. C. Docket N o. CV -05-0053 0-T

THERESA MARIE SCHINDLER SC HIAVO, inc ap ac itate d e x r el , Ro be rt S ch ind le r an d Mary S ch ind le r, he r pare nts and n ex t f ri en ds, Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us MIC HAEL SCHIAVO, as guardian of the person of T he re saMari e Sc hin dle r Sc hiavo, inc ap ac itate d, JUD GE GE ORG E W . G RE ER , THE HOSPICE OF THE FLO RIDA SUNCOAST, INC., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ ON PETITION FOR EXPEDITE D REHEARING EN BANC

(O pin ionMarc h 23 , 200 5)2

Befo re EDMONDSON, Ch ie f Ju dg e, TJOFLAT, ANDERSON, BIRCH, D U BIN A , BL A CK , CA RN E S, BA RKE T T , H U L L , MA RC U S, W IL SO N , a nd PR Y O R, Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. O R D E R : T he Co urt havin g be enpol le d a t the r eque st o f one of the m em be rs of the Co urt and a

m aj or ity of the Ci rc uit

Jud ge s w ho are in re gul ar a ct ive se rv ic e not having voted in favor of it (Rule 35, F ederal R ules of Appellate Pr ocedure; Elev en th Cir cu it Ru le 35 -5 ), th e Su gg es ti on of R eh eari ng En Ba nc is DENIED.

/s/ J. L
. E dm onds on CHIEF JUDGEIn Bonne r v. City of Prichar d, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir.1981) (en ba nc), this cour

t 1 a do pte d a s b ind ingpr e c e de nt a ll d e c isi on s o f t he fo rm e r F if

th C ir c uit ha nd e d d own p ri or

to October 1, 1981. 3 TJO FL AT , C ircuit Judg e, dissenti ng from the denial of rehearing en banc: T he A ll Wri ts A ct , 28 U
. S. C. § 16 51( a) , auth or iz es us t o “ iss ue a ll w ri ts
ne ce ssary or appr opr ia te in ai d of

[ our ] j ur isd ic tio n[ ]
. ” “ Re gard ing pe ndi ng proceedings, a court m ay enj oin any

conduct ‘ which, left unchecked, would have .

. . the pr ac tic al e ff

ec t of dim ini shi ng the c ourt’ s po w er to br ing the li tig at ionto a na tur al c onc lus ion
. ” K lay v. U nit ed H ea lth care G ro up, I nc . , 376 F
. 3d 1 092, 110 2 (1 1thCi r. 200 4) ( quot ing I T T Co m m uni ty D ev el opm en t C or

p. v. Bart on, 569 F
. 2d 13 51 , 13 59 (5t h C ir. 1 97 8) ). 1 W e h av e juri sd ic ti on in th is cas e. See Pu b. L. No. 1 09 -3 (Mar ch 21 , 20 05 ). A district court’ s denial of a m otion for a prelim inary injunction, as w ell as an ap pe llate de ci sio n a ff

irm ing suc h an or de r, or din ar ily c ont em plate that the re w ill be fur th er p ro ceed in gs on th e que st io n wh ethe r to gra nt a pe rm an en t i nju nc ti on . Inthi s c as e, how ev er , if

w e do n ot e nte r aninj unc tio n, f urthe r pr oc ee din gs w ill be
m oot , i. e. , w e w ill los e j ur isd ic tio n. I t i s, the re fo re , c le ar that the dis cr et ion
co nf er re d by the A ll Wri ts A ct

pe rm its us t o e nte r w ha te ve r or de rs a re ne ce ssary to preserve our j urisdictio n and thereby bring this litigation “ to a natural conclusion .” A cc or din gly , I thi nk the pane l e rr ed in de ny ing e m er ge nc y

r el ie f unde r the A llIdo not addre ss the portion of the pane l opinion that affirms the district cour t’s denial of 2 a pre liminary

injunction. An injunction under the All Writs Act would by itself permit the d i s tri ctco urtt o p ro ce edt o th e m er i t s o f t h e c as e a n d a f i n al d ec i s i o ngra n t i n g o r d en yi n g a perma nent injunction. 4 Wri ts A ct . 2 The panel holds that the All Writs Ac t is not available “ wher e the re lief soug ht i s ine sse nc e a pr el im inary inj unc tio n. ” F or

thi s pr opos iti on, it

r el ie s on Florida Medical A ssociation v. U .S . D epartm ent of He alth, E ducation & W elfar e, 601 F. 2d 1 99 ( 5thCi r. 197 9) , and a f ootnot e fr om

K lay , sup ra , that si m

ply
expla ins F lor ida

Me dic al A sso ci at ion ’ s ho ldi ng. A lth oughI a gr ee that the A ll Writs Ac t cannot be used sim ply to circum

vent the requirem ents for a pre lim inary inj unc tio n, I do n ot a gr ee that F lor ida Me dic al A sso ci at ionappl ie s to pr ev en t the iss uanc e of

an in j unc tio n un de r the A ct

in ev er y c as e in whic h aparty

ha s so ught the sam e re lie f thr ougham oti on f or a n or din ar

y pr el im inary

inj unc tio n. I n th is
ca se , w e shou ld e nte r aninj unc tio n un de r the A ll Wri ts A ct not be ca use doi ng s o is n ec es sary

to av oid “ ir re para ble inj ur y , ” but r athe r be ca

use it is “ ne ce ssary

or appropriate in aid of [our] j urisdictio n[] .” 28 U. S. C. § 165 1(a). InF lor ida Me dic al A sso ci at ion , the [ pla int if

fs ] , on b eh al f of

a ll Fl or ida

phy sic ians whose pa tie nts w er e be ne fi ci ar ie s of

the Me dic ar e pr ogr am

in 1977 , br ough t a

c la ss action suit again st the Departm ent of He alth, E ducation andW elfar e to enjoin publi cation of a list which identifies by nam e ever

y5

phy sic ian inthe U nit ed

S ta te s w ho tre at ed

Me dic ar e be ne fi ci ar ie s in 1977 , and s ta te s th e am ount of inc om e he or

she r ec ei ve d f

ro m the pr ogr am in that y ear. P la int if

fs a lle ge d .
. . that pu

bli catio n of

the li st w oul d vi olate the F re ed om of I nf orm at ionA ct , the P ri va cy A ct , a nd the ir r igh t t o pr iva cy

pr ote ct ed

by the F ir st, F if

th and N inth A m en dm en ts t o th e Co nst itu tio n. Fl or ida Me dic al A sso ci at ion , 601 F
. 2d at 20 1 ( ci ta tio ns o m itt ed ). A lth oughthe part ie s inthe c as e ha d su bm itt ed a ll ev ide nc e on the m er its of the ir c la im s, the district court was not y et rea dy to m ake a dec ision on their request to enter a pr el im inary

inj unc tio n. B ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt be lie ve d th at pub lic at ionof

the lis t w oul d r en de r the c la im s m oot , it sim ply e nj oin ed pub lic at ionof

the li st pe ndi ng i ts d ec isi on o n th e m oti on f or apr el im inary

inj unc tio n. I n do ing so, it
re lie d inpart

on the A ll Wri ts A ct . I d. a t 20 1- 02. W e re ve rs ed

and s ta te d, Whil e the A ll Wri ts A ct

e m pow er s adis tr ic t c ourt t o f as hio n extraordinary

rem edies when the need ar ises, it does not autho rize a district court to prom

ulgate an ad hoc procedural code w henever com pliance with the [F ederal R ules of Civil Procedure] proves inc onve nie nt. Whil e publ ic at ionof the li st w oul d a

ppe ar to m oot the co ntr ove rs y , Ru le 65 p ro vid es suf fi ci en t pr ote ct ionf

or the j ur isd ic tio n of

the dis tr ic t c ourt. Id. at 202. W e, therefor e, vacated and re m anded with instruction s that the dist rict j udge giv e the m oti on f

or apr el im inary

inj unc tio n “ his im

m ed ia te a tte nti on. ” I d. at 203
. W e al so n ote d th at the de fe ndant h ad

a gr ee d no t t o publi sh the li st unti l6

the dis tr ic t c ourt r

ule d onthe m oti on, a ssu m ing that the r uli ng w as f

orthc om ing
w ith in thirty

day s of the iss uanc e of

our m an da te . I d. a t 20 3 n. 4 Rece ntly , in K lay , w e explained that “ [t] he wr it issuedin Florida Medical A sso ci at ionw as pe rh ap s th e te xtb ook de fi nit ionof apr el im inary

inj unc tio n—i t
w as iss ue d to pr es er

ve the status quo a nd p re ve nt a lle ge dly ir re para ble inj ur y unt il the court had the opp ortunityto decide whether to issu e a per m anent injunction.” Klay , 376 F. 3d at 110 1 n.13. W e then stated that, “ [a] t m ost, Florida Medical Association stands for the propositio n that a court m ay not iss ue an order under the A ll Wri ts A ct , c ir cum ve nti ng the tr ad iti ona l r equir em en ts f or ainj unc tio n,
w he n aparty

is in r ea lity

se ek ing a‘ tr ad iti ona l’ inj unc tio n. ” I d. Fl or id a Me di cal Ass oc ia ti on is di st in gu is habl e fro m th is cas e fo r two reasons. F irst, F lorida Medical A ssociation can be view ed as holdin g sim ply that dis tr ic t c ourts c an not

use the A ll Wri ts A ct

sim ply to de lay r uli ng o n am oti on f

or a p rel im in ary in

jun ct io n, i .e., to gra nt a so rt o f pr el im in ary pr el im in ary in jun ct io n. In de ed , w e re as one d th at

the A ll Wri ts A ct

“ doe s no t auth or iz e a dis tr ic t c ourt t o prom ulgate an ad hoc procedural code w henever com pliance with the [F ederal Ru le s of Ci vil P ro ce dur e] pr ove s in co nve nie nt. ” F lor ida Me dic al A sso ci at ion , 601 F. 2d at 20 2. W e al so n ote d th at the or din ar

y pr oc ed ur es f or e nte rt ai nin g a
m o t i o n fo r a p re l i m i n ary i n ju n ct i o n p ro v i d ed s u ff

i ci en tp ro t ec t i o n fo r t h e c o u rt ’s7

j ur isd ic tio n. I d. I n th is c as e, in co ntr as t, apr el im inary inj unc tio n ha s be ende nie d, and there w ill never be a hear ing on a perm anent injunction if we do no t issue an inj unc tio n un de r the A ll Wri ts A ct . Second, the inj unction issued in Florida Medical A ssociation wa s, as K lay
sa id, “pe rh ap s th e te xtb ook de fi nit ionof apr el im inary

inj unc tio n—i t w as iss ue d to preserve the status quo and prevent allegedlyirrepar able injury until th e court had the opp ortun ity

to de ci de w he the r to i ssu e a pe rm an en t i nj unc tio n. ” K lay , 376 F. 3d at 110 1 n.13. D espite the fact that Florida Me dical Association noted th at

“ publ ic at ionof

the li st w oul d a

ppe ar to m oot the c ontro ve rs y , ” I fi nd i t di ff ic ult to be lie ve that w as tr

uly the c as e, giv enthe natur e of the pla int if

fs ’ c la im s. E ve n if the li st w er e publ ish ed , it w oul d se em

that the doc tor s w oul d st ill have a n in te re st in its de-pub lication, or even a claim for dam ages resulting from constitu tional vio la tio ns. Fi na lly , if F lor ida Me dic al A sso ci at iondoe s st an d f or the pr opos iti on f

or
w hic h it is ci te d by

the pane l, I sub m it that i t i s w ro ng b ec au se it de pr ive s of

us o f
au th or it y to pre se rv e o urjuri sd ic ti on th atth e All Writ s Act ex pr es sl y co nf ers . A cc or din gly , w e shou ld g rant r eh eari ng e n banc to ove rr ule it
.8

W IL SO N , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , dis se nti ng: I dis se nt f ro m the de nia l of

r eh eari ng en ban c f

or the r ea sons state d inJud ge T j of la t' s di sse nt, a s w el l a s th e re as ons al re ady a rt ic ulate d inm

y dis se nt f ro m the pane l' s de ci sio n.