Case Name: Carl I. GARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David DREYER, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-02
Citations: 94 F. App'x 366
Docket Number: No. 03-1719
Parties: Carl I. GARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David DREYER, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before FAIRCHILD, EVANS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 94
Pages: 366–367

Head Matter:
Carl I. GARNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. David DREYER, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-1719.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 3, 2003.
Decided April 2, 2004.
Carl I. Garner, Muskegon Heights, MI, pro se.
Jeff S. Gibson, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Indianapolis, IN, for DefendantAppellee.
Before FAIRCHILD, EVANS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel, see Operating Procedure 6(b), which after examination of the briefs and the record, has concluded that oral argument is unnecessary. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); Cir. R. 34(f).

Opinion:
ORDER
Michigan resident Carl Garner was dissatisfied with Indiana state court judge David Dreyer's rulings in his child custody suit. He therefore sued Dreyer in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The district court denied Garner's request to enjoin Judge Dreyer's orders, and the case is before us on Garner's interlocutory appeal. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and we dismiss the appeal.
While this interlocutory appeal was pending, the district court proceeded with the damages portion of Garner's lawsuit. On February 2, 2004, the court granted summary judgment to Judge Dreyer and entered final judgment in the case. See Garner v. Dreyer, No. 1:02-CV-1928 (S.D.Ind. Feb. 2, 2004). The district court's judgment on the merits renders this interlocutory appeal moot. See United States v. Estevez, 852 F.2d 239, 241 n. 3 (7th Cir.1988) (defendant's interlocutory appeal rendered moot by subsequent judgment); see also Saman v. Robbins, 173 F.3d 1150, 1158 n. 8 (9th Cir.1999) (defendants' interlocutory appeal from the denial of judgment as a matter of law rendered moot after judgment entered on the merits).
Accordingly, we DISMISS Garner's interlocutory appeal as moot.