FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT Jul y 18, 2006 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11923 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 6 - 8 0 1 3 1 - CV- KLR A N N A D I N A R D O , A U G U S T A D I N A R D O , V I C T O R I A D I N A R D O , P la in tif f s - A p p e lla n ts , v ersu s P A L M B E A C H C O U N T Y C I R C U I T C O U R T J U D G E , D a v id F . C r o w , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Ju l y 18, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A nna , A ugus t a , a nd V i c t or i aD i na r do appe a l pr o s e the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s ua s pont e di s m i s s a l w i th pr e j udi c e of the i rpr o s e c i vi l c om pl a i nt , f i l e d pur s ua ntt o 42 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 , a lle g in g th a t aF lo r id as ta te ju d g e v io la te d th e irF o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts , a s w e ll a s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f th e ir F ed. R . C i v. P . 59 (e ) m ot i on t o al t eror am end the j ud gm ent . F or the re as on s s et f o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i rm. O n F e b ru a ry 7 , 2 0 0 6 , th e D in a r d o s f ile d p r o s e th e in s ta n t § 1 9 8 3 c o m p la in t, assert i n g th atth ey w ere d en i ed th ei r F o u rt een th A m en d m en tri g h tt o b e tri ed b y a c o u r t w ith ju r is d ic tio n . T h e D in a r d o s a lle g e dth a t J u d g e D a v id F . C r o w , P a lm B e a c h C ounty C i r c ui tC our tJ udge , i m pr ope r l y pr e s i de d ove rm ul t i pl e c i vi l a c t i ons re l at i ng t o a prop erty- fore cl osure j ud gm entw here the am ou nti n con trovers y w as bel ow the j uri sdi ct i on al am ou ntof $1 5, 00 0. T he D i nardos al so cont ended that J u d g e C r o w a c te d w ith m a lic e a n d w illf u l in te n t a n d th a t, a s ar e s u lt o f h is c o n d u c t, the y w e r e or de r e d t o pa y unl a w f ul a tt orne y f

e e s , s uf f e r e d a n e qui t abl e c onve r s i on o f th e d e e d to th e irh o m e , a n d w e r e e v ic te d f r o m th e irh o m e u n d e ra n ille g a l w r it of pos s e s s i on. A s r e l i e f

, the y s ought$370, 000 i n da m a ge s , aw r i tof pos s e s s i on fo r th ei r p ro p erty, an d $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 i n p u n i t i v e d am ag es. O n F e brua ry 14, 2006, the di s tr i c tc our t , w i thoutc i t i ng t o a uthor i ty , s ua spon t e di sm i ss ed the D i nardos’ com pl ai ntw i tho utprej ud i ce . T he courtexpl ai ned3

th a t, o n J u n e 9 , 2 0 0 3 , in D in a r d o v . B u tte rw o r th , C a s e . N o . 0 3 - 8 0 1 5 9 - C I V , a di ff er entj ud ge i n the D i stri ctC ou rtfor the S ou thern D i stri ctof F l ori da had ent er ed a n “ O r de rR e s tr i c t i ng F utur e F i l i ngs by P l a i nt i f f s ” ( “ i nj unc t i ve or de r ” ) , w he r e by th a t ju d g e h a d “p e rm a n e n tly e n jo in e d [ th e D in a r d o s ] f

r o m f ilin g o ra tte m p tin g to i ni t i a t e a ny f

ur the rpr o s e l a w s ui t s i n a ny f e de r a l c our tw i thoutf

i r s tobt a i ni ng a w ri tt en order fr om a j ud ge of thi s c ou rtconfi rm i ng thatthe ac t i on i s notfr i vo l ou s. ” T he c our ti n the i ns t a ntc a s e di s c us s e d tha t , i n i s s ui ng thi s i nj unc t i ve or de r , the p r io rju d g e h a d f

o u n d th a t th e D in a r d o s h a d f ile d s e v e r a l f

r iv o lo u s , f

a c ia lly de f i c i e ntpr o s e l a w s ui t s i n the di s tr i c tc our ta ga i ns tva r i ous publ i c of f i c i a l s a nd j udi c i a l of

f i c e r s . T he c our ta l s o de t e rm i ne d tha tthe D i na r dos , be f or e f i l i ng the i ns t a ntc om pl a i nt , ha d nota tt a c he d aw r i tt e n or de rc onf i rm i ng tha tthe c om pl a i nt w as no tfr i vo l ou s. T he courtconcl ud ed thatthi s c om pl ai ntw as no ti n com pl i ance w ith th e in

ju n c tiv e o r d e ra n d d ir e c te d th e D in a r d o s to r e f ile th e irc o m p la in t, w ith the r e qui s i t e a tt a c he d c our tor de r , i f a ta l l , w i thi n 20 da y s of the e ntry of

the i ns t a nt o r d e r . O n F e brua ry 21, 2006, the D i na r dos f i l e d the i rR ul e 59( e ) m ot i on, a s s e r t i ng tha tthe c our tha d e rr one ous l y di s m i s s e d the i ri ns t a ntc om pl a i ntbe c a us e the i nj unc t i ve or de ron w hi c h i tr e l i e d w a s “ avoi d j udgm e nti s s ue d f r om apr oc e e di ngAs the district court noted in its order denying theDinardos’ Rule 59(e) motion, the 1 phrasecora

m non judice, that, “be forea per son not a judg e,” me ans that the proc eedingwas not a judicial proc eedingbeca use lawf ul judicial authority

was not pre sent and c ould not, therefore, yield a re sult. S ee B urnham v. Superior Court of California, County of Marin, 495 U.S. 604, 608-09, 110 S.Ct. 2105, 2109, 109 L .Ed.2d 631 (1990). The Dina rdos also filed a

n aff idavit in support of their Rule 59(e)motion, which 2 c ontaine d th esamea ssertion s a s in the ir motion and su pp or tingmemorand

um. 4 c o r a m n o n ju d ic e .” T h e D in a r d o s e x p la in e d th a t, b e c a u s e § 1 9 8 3 “is n o t as ta tu te 1 p r o v i d i n g f

o rp r o t e c t i o n o f

c i v i l r i g h t s w i th i n th e me a n i n g o f 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 34 3(a) (4), ” the pri or courtl ac ked j uri sdi ct i on , and the court ’ s i nj un ct i ve order, thu s, w as vo i d and shou l d n otbe enforce d. . T he D i nardos, thu s, cont ended that the i rf i l i ng of the i ns t a ntc om pl a i ntw a s pr ope runde rF e d. R . C i v. P . 8, a nd tha tthe c le rk w h o in itia lly a c c e p te d th e in s ta n t p le a d in g a c te d p r o p e r ly . I n a d d itio n to th is m o tio n , th e D in a r d o s f ile d as u p p o r tin g m e m o r a n d u m , in w hi c h the y , w i thoutc i t i ng t o bi ndi ng a uthor i ty , a ga i n c ont e nde d tha t , a l though the y ha d a tt e m pt e d t o i nvoke j ur i s di c t i on i n the i rpr i ora c t i on a s s e r t i ng a§ 1983 c l a i m , the c our ttha ti s s ue d the i nj unc t i ve or de rl a c ke d s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on un der § 13 43 t o d ec i de thei r § 19 83 cl ai m , the proceedi ng w as cora m no n j ud i ce , a n d th e o r d e rw a s v o i d . Th e D i n a r d o s a tt a c h e d t o th i s s u p p o r t i n g me mo r a n d u m a 2 copy of the pri or court ’ s s ua spon t e i nj un ct i ve order. T hi s i nj un ct i ve order in c lu d e d th a t d is m is s a l o f th e D in a r d o s ’ § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n w a s w a rr a n te d , p u r s u a n t to F e d .R .C iv .P . 1 2 ( b ) ( 6 ) , b e c a u s e , in a s s e r tin g v io la tio n s o f th e irc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts5

ar i si ng ou tof the al l eged fai l ure by the S t at e of F l ori da and the A tt orney G ener al of F l ori da t o d i sc harge thei r dut i es of offi ce by no tre vo ki ng the chart erof the B oca C h ic aH o m e o w n e r s A s s o c ia tio n , th e D in a r d o s h a d f a ile d to a lle g e d ac o g n iz ab le f e d e r a l c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i m. F ur the rm or e , thi s i nj unc t i ve or de ri nc l ude d tha tthe D i na r dos , appe a r i ng i ndi vi dua l l y ori n c om bi na t i on, ha d f i l e d s e ve n di f

f e r e ntpr o s e l a w s ui t s i n the D is tr ic t C o u r t f

o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f F lo r id aa g a in s t v a r io u s p u b lic o f f ic ia ls a n d ju d ic ia l o f

f ic e r s o v e rth e p r e c e d in g y e a r , in c lu d in g as u it a r is in g o u t o f th e ir di s a gr e e m e ntw i th apr ope r ty - f or e c l os ur e j udgm e nte nt e r e d by J udge C r ow , a c t i ng i n h i s c apac i ty a s ast at e j ud i ci al offi ce r. T hi s i nj un ct i ve order al so di sc usse d that one of the s e s ui t s , w hi c h w a s f i l e d a ga i ns tJ udge C r ow , w a s di s m i s s e d f orl a c k of s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on on N ove m be r26, 2002. B a s e d on the c our t ’ s r e vi e w of

“ the hi s t ory of

f a c i a l l y de f

i c i e ntc om pl a i nt s f

i l e d by the pr o s e pl a i nt i f f s i n the f e de r a l di s tr i c tc our tf

orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da , ” a nd ba s e d on i t s i nhe r e nt pow e ra nd obl i ga t i on t o pr ot e c ti t s doc ke t s f r om abus e by f

r e que ntl i t i ga nt s , i ts ua spon t e e nt er ed re stri ct i on s upo n any future pro se fi l i ng s by a ny of the pl ai nt i ff s nam ed i n the ac t i on , or by pers on s a ct i ng on thei r behal f. T he court , there fore , di re ct ed the cl erk o f the courtno tt o acc epta c om pl ai ntfr om any of these pl ai nt i ff s un l es s ( 1) i ti nv ol ved cl ai m s notar i si ng fr om the sa m e nucl eus of operat i ve fa ctasBe forethe cour t entere d its order denying theDinardos’ Rule 59(e) motion, itordered 3 the Dinardos’ to servea copy of this order on thedefendant, pursuant to F ed.R.Civ.P. 5. The Dinardos, thereaf

ter, filed a

cer tificate of service , ref

lectingthat such ser

vice had been completed. In addition to not responding to the D inardos’ motion, the def endant also has not filed a response brief on a ppeal. 6 thos e a l l e ge d i n the unde r l y i ng § 1983 a c t i on orpr e vi ous a c t i ons f i l e d by the D i nardos, and (2) had att ac hed a w ri tt en order fr om a j ud ge of the di stri ctcourt c o n f irm in g th a t th e a c tio n is n o t f r iv o lo u s . A ft er th e d efen d an ti n th e i n st an tcase fail ed t o resp o n d t o th e D i n ard o s’ R u le 5 9 ( e ) m o tio n , th e c o u r t d e n ie d th is m o tio n . T h e c o u r t e x p la in e d th a t, 3 c ontr a ry t o the D i na r dos ’ a r gum e nt , the pr i orc our tha d j ur i s di c t i on ove rthe a c t i on prec i pi t at i ng the i nj un ct i ve order, pu rs uantt o 2 8 U . S . C . §§ 11 31 and 1 34 3(a) (3), re spec t i vel y, because ( 1) i tw as a c i vi l ac t i on ar i si ng un der the U ni t ed S t at es C on st i tut i on , and (2) i tw as an ac t i on t o redre ss the al l eged depri vat i on of fe dera l c ons t i tut i ona l r i ght s unde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w . T he c our tc onc l ude d tha tthe in ju n c tiv e o r d e rw a s n o t v o id a n d th a t th e c o u r t, th e r e f o r e , h a d in s u f

f ic ie n t c a u s e to r e c ons i de ri t s di s m i s s a l of the a c t i on. In addi t i on t o d et erm i ni ng thatthe i nj un ct i ve order w as no tvo i d, the court f ound tha tthe i ns t a nta c t i on w a s s ubs t a nt i a l l y s i m i l a rt o the pr e vi ous l y f i l e d a c t i on ag ai n stJu d g e C ro w , as b o th act i o n s (1 ) w ere b ro u g h tb y th e sam e p l ai n t i ffs ag ai n st the sa m e def

endant , (2) c hal l enged the prop ri ety of Jud ge C row ’ s e ntryof a f i nal7

j ud gm enti n the sa m e s t at e c as e, and (3) al l eged vi ol at i on s of the D i nardos’ du ep r o c e s s r ig h ts u n d e rth e F o u r te e n th A m e n d m e n t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n . T he c our tde t e rm i ne d tha t , be c a us e the pr e vi ous l y f i l e d a c t i on w a s di s m i s s e d f or l ack o f su b

j ect -m att er j u ri sd i ct i o n , th e D i n ard o s’ d u p l i cat e fi l i n g o f th e sam e case before adi ff

er entj ud ge of the sa m e c ou rtvi ol at ed “ the un i vers al l y c on dem ned prac t i ce of ‘ j ud ge shop pi ng ’ ” a nd l ocal rul es of procedure. T he court , there fore , c onc l ude d tha tthe D i na r dos ’ “ a tt e m ptt o m a ni pul a t e j udi c i a l a s s i gnm e nt pr oc e s s e s ” of

the c our t“ thr e a t e n[ e d] the or de r l y a dm i ni s tr a t i on of j us t i c e ” a nd m a nda t e d the c onve r s i on of the di s m i s s a l of

the a c t i on w i thoutpr e

j udi c e t o a d is m is s a l w ith p r e

ju d ic e . C on strui ng the D i nardos’ bri ef l i bera l l y, they a ss ertthatthe di stri ctcourt e rr e d in s u as p o n te d is m is s in g th e in s ta n t § 1 9 8 3 c o m p la in t a n d d e n y in g th e irR u le 59 (e ) m ot i on . S ee T annenb aum v. U ni t ed S t at es , 14 8 F . 3d 12 62 , 12 63 (11th C i r. 19 98 ) ( expl ai ni ng that“ [p] ro se pl ea di ng s a re hel d t o a l es s s tri ng entst andard than pl e a di ngs dr a f

t e d by a tt orne y s a nd w i l l , the r e f or e , be l i be r a l l y c ons true d” ) . T he D in ar d o s c o n ten d th at, as a re su lto f th e c o m b in atio n o f ( 1 ) th e in ju n ctiv e o rd er ’s r e qui r e m e nttha tthe y f

i r s tobt a i n a n or de ra uthor i z i ng the m t o f i l e ac om pl a i nt , a nd (2) the court ’ s gener al prac t i ce of on l y a l l ow i ng pl ai nt i ff s t o fi l e m ot i on s i n o pen c a s e s , th e y h a v e b e e n d e p r iv e d o f th e irF ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to a c c e s s th e c o u r ts .8

T he D i nardos al so ar gu e thatthe courtthati ss ued the i nj un ct i ve order l ac ked s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on a nd the or de r , thus , w a s voi d. I n s uppor tof thi s s e c ond a r gum e nt , the D i na r dos c ont e nd tha t§ 1983— the onl y s t a tut e on w hi c h the D i na r dos r e l i e d i n br i ngi ng the i rpr e vi ous c i vi l a c t i on— i s notas t a tut e pr ovi di ng f orthe pr ot e c t i on of

c i vi l r i ght s w i thi n the m e a ni ng of the j ur i s di c t i ona l pr ovi s i ons in § 1 3 4 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t id e n tif y th e a u th o r ity o n w h ic h it w a s r e ly in g in s uas pont e di s m i s s i ng the i ns t a nta c t i on. W e , how e ve r , ge ne r a l l y “ r e vi e w f or abuse of di sc re t i on a di stri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ss al for f ai l ure t o com pl y w i th the rul es o f c o u r t.” B e tty K . A g e n c ie s , L td . v . M /V M O N A D A , 4 3 2 F .3 d 1 3 3 3 , 1 3 3 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . “D is c r e tio n m e a n s th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a s a‘r a n g e o f c h o ic e , a n d th a t its de c i s i on w i l l notbe di s turbe d a s l ong a s i ts t a y s w i thi n tha tr a nge a nd i s not i nfl uenced by any m i st ake of l aw . ’ ” I d. (i nt ernal qu ot at i on om i tt ed). M oreover, w e m ayaf

fi rm a dec i si on of the di stri ctcourtbase d “ on any a dequ at e groun d, even i f i ti s o th er th an th e o n e o n w h i ch th e co u rtactu al l y rel i ed . ” F i sh erm an A g ai n st D e s tru c tio n o f

E n v ’t, I n c . v . C lo s te rF a rm s , I n c ., 3 0 0 F .3 d 1 2 9 4 , 1 2 9 6 - 9 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) . A c o u r tma y d i s mi s s ac a s e w i th p r e j u d i c e b a s e d o n e i th e rFe d . R. Ci v . P. 41( b) , orthe c our t ’ s i nhe r e ntpow e rt o m a na ge i t s doc ke t . B e tty K . A ge nc i e s , 4329

F .3 d a t 1 3 3 7 . R u le 4 1 ( b ) a llo w s f o rd is m is s a l o f

a n a c tio n if

th e p la in tif

f f a ils to p r o s e c u t e o rt o c o mp l y w i th p r o c e d u r a l ru l e s o ra n o r d e ro f th e c o u r t . Fe d . R. Ci v . P. 4 1 ( b ) ( p r o v id in g th a t, “[ f ]o rf a ilu r e o f th e p la in tif

f to p r o s e c u te o rto c o m p ly w ith the s e rul e s ora ny or de rof c our t , ade f

e nda ntm a y m ove f

ordi s m i s s a l of

a n a c t i on orof a ny c l a i m a ga i ns tthe de f e nda nt ” ) ; s e e a l s o L ope z v. A r a ns a s C ounty I nde p. S ch. D i st . , 57 0 F . 2d 54 1, 54 4 (5th C i r. 19 78 ) ( af fi rm i ng a s ua spon t e di sm i ss al unde rR ul e 41( b) a nd e xpl a i ni ng tha t , “ [ a ] l though the rul e i s phr a s e d i n t e rm s of di s m i s s a l on the m ot i on of the de f e nda nt , i ti s c l e a rtha tthe pow e ri s i nhe r e nti n the courtand m aybe exerc i se d sua spon t e . . . ”) . A dd i t i on al l y, w e have expl ai ned that “[ t]h e c o u r t’s p o w e rto d is m is s is a n in h e r e n t a s p e c t o f its a u th o r ity to e n f

o r c e its or de ra nd i ns ur e pr om ptdi s pos i t i on of l a w s ui t s . ” G of

or th v. O w e ns , 766 F . 2d 1 5 3 3 , 1 5 3 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) . U n d e rb o th o f

th e s e a u th o r i t i e s , ad i s mi s s a l w i th p r e j u d i c e “ i s a n e x tr e me sa nct i on thatm aybe prop er l y i m po se d o nl y w hen: ‘ (1) aparty e ng ages i n a cl ea r patt ern o f del ayor w i l l ful cont em pt(c on tum ac i ou s c on du ct ); and (2) the di stri ct c o u r ts p e c i f

i c a l l y f i n d s th a tl e s s e rs a n c t i o n s wo u l d n o ts u f f i c e . ’ ” B e tty K. A g e n c ie s , 4 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 3 7 - 3 8 ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . “[ T ]h e h a r s h s a n c tio n o f d is m is s a l w ith p r e

ju d ic e is th o u g h t to b e m o r e ap p r o p r ia te i n a ca se [s uch as her e, ] w here a party, as di st i nctfr om coun se l , i s c ul pabl e. ” S ee10

i d. at13 38 (quo t at i on om i tt ed). W e r e a di l y c onc l ude tha ta n abus e of di s c r e t i on di d notoc c uri n the i ns t a nt ca se . T he di stri ctcourtexpl ai ned, i n i t s ori gi nal sua s po nt e di sm i ss al order, that di sm i ss al w i tho utprej ud i ce w as w arra nt ed because a pri or court , i n i ss ui ng an i nj unc t i ve or de r , ha d “ pe rm a ne nt l y e nj oi ne d [ the D i na r dos ] f r om f i l i ng or att em p t i n g t o i n i t i at e an y fu rth er p ro se l aw su i t s i n an y fed eral co u rtw i th o u tfi rst obt a i ni ng aw r i tt e n or de rf r om aj udge of

thi s c our tc onf

i rm i ng tha tthe a c t i on i s not f r i vol ous , ” a nd tha tthe D i na r dos , be f or e f i l i ng the i ns t a ntc om pl a i nt , ha d not att ac hed a w ri tt en order confi rm i ng thatthe com pl ai ntw as no tfr i vo l ou s. In subsequent l y c on vert i ng thi s di sm i ss al t o o ne w i th p re j ud i ce , the di stri ctcourt di s c us s e d tha t( 1) the D i na r dos ’ dupl i c a t e f i l i ng of the s a m e c a s e be f

or e adi f f e r e nt j udge of the s a m e c our tvi ol a t e d “ the uni ve r s a l l y c onde m ne d pr a c t i c e of ‘ j udge s h o p p in g ’” a n dth e c o u r t’s lo c a l p r o c e d u r a l ru le s , a n d ( 2 ) th e D in a r d o s ’ “a tte m p t to m a n ip u la te ju d ic ia l a s s ig n m e n t p r o c e s s e s ” o f th e c o u r t “th e a te n [ e d ] th e o r d e r ly ad m in istratio n o f ju stice.” I n d ee d , alth o u g h th e D in ar d o s c o n test th e c o u rt’s di s m i s s a l of

the i ns t a nta c t i on, the y ha ve notc ha l l e nge d the c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs r e l a t i ng t o the num be ra nd na tur e of the i rpr e vi ous c our tf

i l i ngs a nd the i ri nt e nt b e h in d th o s e f

ilin g s . T o the e xt e ntthe D i na r dos a r e c ont e ndi ng tha tthe di s m i s s a l w a s e rr one ous11

by c ont e s t i ng the va l i di ty of the i nj unc t i ve or de r , unde rthe A l l W r i t s A c t , “ [ t ] he S u p r e m e C o u r t a n d a ll c o u rts e s tab lis h e d b y a n A c t o f C o n g r e s s m a y is s u e a ll w r its ne c e s s a ry orappr opr i a t e i n a i d of the i rr e s pe c t i ve j ur i s di c t i ons a nd a gr e e abl e t o the u s a g e s a n d p r in c ip le s o f la w .” 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 6 5 1 ( a ) . A c o u r t’s p o w e rto p r o te c t its j u ri sd i ct i o n u n d er th i s A cti n cl u d es: th e p o w e rt o e n

j o i n ad i s s a t i s f

i e d p a r ty b e n to n r e - l i t i g a t i n g c l a i ms thatw er e ( or coul d h ave been) pre vi ou sl y l i t i gat ed before the court f r om f i l i ng i n both j udi c i a l a nd non- j udi c i a l f orum s , a s l ong a s the in ju n c tio n d o e s n o t c o m p le te ly f o r e c lo s e alitig a n t f

r o m a n y a c c e s s to th e co u rt s. R i c c a r d v. P rude nt i a l I ns . C o. , 307 F . 3d 1277, 1295 n. 15 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( c i t i ng P ro cu p v . S tri ck l an d , 7 9 2 F . 2 d 1 0 6 9 , 1 0 7 9 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 6 ) (en b an c)); see al so K l a y v. U ni t e d H e a l thgr oup, I nc . , 376 F . 3d 1092, 1099- 1102 ( 11th C i r . 2004) ( d is c u s s in g in d e ta il th e A ll W r its A c t) . In i ss ui ng the i nst anti nj un ct i ve order, the pri or fe dera l courtexpl ai ned that the or de rw a s i n r e s pons e t o “ the hi s t ory of f a c i a l l y de f

i c i e ntc om pl a i nt s f

i l e d by the pr o s e pl a i nt i f

f s i n the f e de r a l di s tr i c tc our tf

orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da . ” T he D i na r dos ha ve notc ha l l e nge d the c our t ’ s f i ndi ng i n the i nj unc t i ve order thatthe D i nardos, appeari ng i nd i vi du al l y or i n com bi nat i on , had fi l ed se ven di f f e r e ntpr o s e l a w s ui t s i n the D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da agai nstvari ou s pub l i c off i ci al s a nd j ud i ci al offi ce rs ov erthe prece di ng ye ar ,12

i ncl ud i ng a s ui tar i si ng ou tof thei r di sa gree m entw i th a prop erty- fore cl osure ju d g m e n t e n te r e d b y th e d e f e n d a n t in th e in s ta n t c a s e . F urtherm ore, al tho ug h the D i nardos ar e a ss ert i ng thatthi s i nj un ct i ve order e xc e e de d the i s s ui ng c our t ’ s pow e r s unde rthe A l l W r i t s A c tby de pr i vi ng the m of th e irF ir s t A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to a c c e s s th e c o u r ts , a n d th e y a r e c o n te n d in g th a t th e ir a c c e s s is b lo c k e d b e c a u s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t g e n e r a lly d o e s n o t r e v ie w p le a d in g s in u n o p e n e d c a s e s , th e y h a v e f a ile d to c ite to s u p p o r tin g a u th o r ity f o rth is a r g u m e n t. T o the c ontr a ry , i n P r okup, w e e xpl a i ne d, i n a n e n ba nc de c i s i on, tha t , a l though the d is tr ic t c o u r t’s in

ju n c tio n a t is s u e in th a t c a s e w a s o v e rb r o a d , d is tr ic t c o u r ts ge ne r a l l y ha ve “ [ c ] ons i de r abl e di s c r e t i on” i n de s i gni ng the s e i nj unc t i ons , i nc l udi ng a uthor i ty t o i m pos e s e r i ous r e s tr i c t i ons on ade f e nda ntbr i ngi ng m a tt e r s be f or e the courtw i tho utan att orney, as l on g as the defendanti s notcom pl et el y f orec l osed f r om “ a ny a c c e s s t o the c our t s . ” S e e P r okup, 792 F . 2d a t1073- 74. T hus , w e ha ve uphe l d di s m i s s a l s of

pr o s e a c t i ons w he r e the pl a i nt i f f s , w ho w e r e f

r e que nt litig a to r s , v io la te d in

ju n c tio n s p r o h ib itin g th e m f r o m f ilin g o ra tte m p tin g to in itia te a n y n e w la w s u its in a n y f e d e r a l c o u r t w ith o u t f

ir s t o b ta in in g le a v e o f

th e c o u r t. S e e M a r t i n- T r i gonav. S ha w , 986 F . 2d 1384, 1387- 88 ( 11th C i r . 1993) ( l i s t i ng c a s e s w h e r e th is C o u r t h a s u p h e ld p r e - f ilin g r e s tr ic tio n s o n litig io u s p la in tif f s ) . B e c a us e the i nj unc t i ve or de rthe D i na r dos a r e c ha l l e ngi ng s i m i l a r l y di d not13

com pl et el y f

orec l ose them fr om “ any a cc es s t o the court s, ” the pri or courthad a u th o r ity u n d e rth e A ll W r its A c t to is s u e it a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin r e ly in g o n th is o r d e rin d is m is s in g th e in s ta n t a c t. S i m i l a r l y , the D i na r dos ’ a r gum e nttha tthi s i nj unc t i ve or de rw a s voi d a nd un enforce abl e bec ause the i ss ui ng courtl ac ked subj ec t -m att erj uri sdi ct i on ov er the i runde r l y i ng § 1983 c om pl a i nti s w i thoutm e r i t . W e r e vi e w que s t i ons of s u b je c t- m a tte rju r is d ic tio n d e n o v o . B r o w n v . S n o w , 4 4 0 F .3 d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 2 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 06 ). U nd er§ 1 33 1, fe dera l court s have f eder al -quest i on j uri sdi ct i on ov er sui t s “ i n w hi ch a w el l -pl ea ded com pl ai ntes t abl i shes ei ther thatfe dera l l aw cr ea t es the c a us e of

a c t i on ortha tthe pl a i nt i f f’ s r i ghtt o r e l i e f

ne c e s s a r i l y de pe nds on re sol ut i on of a s ub st ant i al qu es t i on of fe dera l l aw . ” N ew t on v. C api t al A ss urance C o ., 2 4 5 F .3 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 0 8 - 0 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . In the i nst antca se , the pri or fe dera l courtthati ss ued the i nj un ct i ve order had subj ec t -m att erj uri sdi ct i on because the D i nardos, re l yi ng on § 1 98 3, had ass ert ed v io la tio n s o f

th e irc o n s titu tio n a l r ig h ts a r is in g o u t o f th e a lle g e d f

a ilu r e b y th e S ta te of F l or i daa nd the A tt orne y G e ne r a l of F l or i dat o di s c ha r ge the i rdut i e s of of f i c e by notr e voki ng the c ha r t e rof the B oc aC hi c aH om e ow ne r s A s s oc i a t i on. S e c t i on 1983 pr ovi de s af

e de r a l c a us e of

a c t i on f orapl a i nt i f

f a l l e gi ng tha t : ( 1) a n a c tor om i s s i on de pr i ve d hi m of ar i ght , pr i vi l e ge , ori m m uni ty s e c ur e d by the14

C on st i tut i on or l aw s of the U ni t ed S t at es ; and (2) the ac tor om i ss i on w as c om m i tt e d by ape r s on a c t i ng unde rc ol orof s t a t e l a w . S e e P a rr a ttv. T a y l or , 451 U . S . 527, 535, 101 S . C t . 1908, 1913, 68 L . E d. 2d 420 ( 1981) , ove rrul e d i n pa r ton othe rgr ounds , D a ni e l s v. W i l l i a m s , 474 U . S . 327, 332, 106 S . C t . 662, 665, 88 L . E d. 2d 662 ( 1986) ; s e e a l s o G r i f f i n v. C i ty of

O pa - L oc ka , 261 F . 3d 1295, 1303 (11th C i r. 20 01 ) ( expl ai ni ng thata s ucce ss ful pl ai nt i ff i n a ci vi l ri gh t s a ct i on un der § 1 98 3 m ustshow thata per son act i ng un der c ol or of st at e l aw depri ved h i m of a fe dera l ri gh t ). T hu s, the i nj un ct i ve order w as i ss ued b y acourtw i th subj ec t -m att er ju r is d ic tio n , a n d th e d is tr ic t c o u r t in th e in s ta n t c a s e d id n o t e rrin r e ly in g o n it in e n te r in g its d is m is s a l o r d e r . F in ally, t o th e e x ten t th e D in ar d o s a lso ar e c h allen g in g th e d istrict co u rt’s de ni a l of the i rR ul e 59( e ) m ot i on, w e r e vi e w the de ni a l of aR ul e 59( e ) m ot i on f

or abuse of di sc re t i on . L am bertv. F ul t on C ou nty, G a. , 25 3 F . 3d 58 8, 59 8 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). “ T he on l y groun ds for gra nt i ng [aR ul e 59(e)] m ot i on ar e new l y- di sc ov er ed e vi de nc e orm a ni f

e s te rr or s of

l a w orf a c t . ” I n r e K e l l ogg, 197 F . 3d 1116, 1119 (11th C i r. 19 99 ). A dd i t i on al l y, “ [m ] ot i on s f or re consi dera t i on shou l d n otbe used t o r a i s e l e ga l a r gum e nt s w hi c h c oul d a nd s houl d ha ve be e n m a de be f or e the j udgm e ntw a s i s s ue d. ” S a nde r l i n v. S e m i nol e T r i be of F l or i da , 243 F . 3d 1282, 1 2 9 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . A s d is c u s s e d ab o v e , th e D in a r d o s ’ R u le 5 9 ( e ) m o tio n d id15

noti de nt i f

y a ny m e r i t or i ous e rr or s of l a w orf a c t . T he D i na r dos a l s o di d not p resen tan y n ew l y d i sco v ered o r p rev i o u sl y u n av ai l ab l e ev i d en ce. A cco rd i n g l y, th e d is tr ic t c o u r t a ls o d id n o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g th e D in a r d o s ’ R u le 5 9 ( e ) m o tio n . W e , th e r e f o r e , a f f irm . AF F I RME D.