Court Opinion

ID: 9364092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-18 15:00:36.257981+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:35.757115
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-12265   Document: 29-1    Date Filed: 01/18/2023   Page: 1 of 5

                                             [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-12265
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       JESSE REGALADO,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL,
       DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND
       INFECTIOUS DISEASES,
       PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
       COMMISSIONER,      U.S.   FOOD    AND  DRUG
       ADMINISTRATION,

                                                Defendants-Appellees.
USCA11 Case: 22-12265       Document: 29-1        Date Filed: 01/18/2023       Page: 2 of 5

       2                        Opinion of the Court                    22-12265

                              ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Georgia
                      D.C. Docket No. 4:22-cv-00002-TCB
                            ____________________

       Before LUCK, BRASHER, and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Jesse Regalado appeals the district court’s dismissal of his pro
       se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint challenging the constitutionality of
       the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Emergency
       Temporary Standard (ETS) vaccine mandate. 1 On motion by the
       defendants, the district court dismissed the action for lack of juris-
       diction, stating the claims were moot, Regalado lacked standing,
       and sovereign immunity barred the action. After review, 2 we af-
       firm. 3

       1 The ETS vaccine mandate required employers with at least 100 employees
       to require workers to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, but it was withdrawn on
       January 26, 2022. COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing: Emergency Tempo-
       rary Standard, 87 Fed. Reg. 3928 (Jan. 26, 2022).
       2We review mootness and standing determinations de novo. Tanner Adver.
       Grp., L.L.C. v. Fayette Cnty., 451 F.3d 777, 784 (11th Cir. 2006) (en banc).
       3 We DENY Regalado’s Motion for Summary Judgment as summary judg-
       ment is not an available remedy for a party’s failure to file an appendix.
USCA11 Case: 22-12265       Document: 29-1        Date Filed: 01/18/2023       Page: 3 of 5

       22-12265                 Opinion of the Court                             3

                                   I. MOOTNESS
             Regalado asserts the district court erred by concluding his
       claims were moot because a different mandate, the Centers for
       Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate that applies to em-
       ployees of Medicare and Medicaid providers, was upheld by the Su-
       preme Court. 4
              Jurisdiction of federal courts is limited by the Constitution
       to “cases” and “controversies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “The rule
       that federal courts may not decide cases that have become moot
       derives from Article III’s case and controversy requirement.” Si-
       erra Club v. U.S. E.P.A., 315 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002). “Dis-
       missal of a moot case is required because mootness is jurisdic-
       tional.” Id. “A case becomes moot—and therefore no longer a
       Case or Controversy for purposes of Article III—when the issues
       presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable
       interest in the outcome.” Atheists of Fla., Inc. v. City of Lakeland,
       713 F.3d 577, 593-94 (11th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks omitted).
              The district court did not err in concluding Regalado’s
       claims were moot. First, the ETS mandate was withdrawn and Re-
       galado’s claims stemmed from this mandate. Atheists of Fla., 713
       F.3d at 593-94. Regalado’s shift to rely on the CMS mandate does
       not salvage this jurisdictional requirement because claims about

       4 The CMS Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination Rule, which
       applies to employees of Medicare and Medicaid providers, did go into effect.
       Biden v. Missouri, 142 S. Ct. 647, 652 (2022).
USCA11 Case: 22-12265      Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 01/18/2023     Page: 4 of 5

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  22-12265

       the CMS mandate were never properly before the district court as
       he only raised them in opposition to the motion to dismiss and did
       not seek leave to amend his complaint. See Gilmour v. Gates,
       McDonald & Co., 382 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2004) (“A plaintiff
       may not amend her complaint through argument in a brief oppos-
       ing summary judgment.”). While the CMS mandate is still in ef-
       fect, the ETS mandate—the only mandate raised in Regalado’s
       complaint—is not. There cannot be an active case or controversy
       over a mandate that never went into effect because the issues are
       no longer live. Atheists of Fla., 713 F.3d at 593-94.
                                  II. STANDING
               Regalado also contends the district court erred by finding he
       failed to allege a cognizable injury, because after he finishes gradu-
       ate school, he is likely to be employed in the healthcare field and
       the CMS mandate will limit his employment opportunities because
       his personal medical conditions prevent him from getting the
       COVID-19 vaccine.
               “The core component of standing is an essential and un-
        changing part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article
        III.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992).
        The plaintiff bears the burden to show each element of standing,
        including “an injury in fact, meaning an injury that is concrete
        and particularized, and actual or imminent.” Tanner Adver.
        Grp., LLC v. Fayette Cnty., 451 F.3d 777, 791 (11th Cir. 2006 (en
        banc). In addition, “[b]ecause injunctions regulate future con-
        duct, a party has standing to seek injunctive relief only if the party
USCA11 Case: 22-12265        Document: 29-1       Date Filed: 01/18/2023        Page: 5 of 5

       22-12265                  Opinion of the Court                             5

        alleges, and ultimately proves, a real and immediate—as opposed
        to a merely conjectural or hypothetical—threat of future injury.”
        Wooden v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 247 F.3d 1262,
        1284 (11th Cir. 2001) (quotation marks omitted).
              Reviewing his standing de novo, Regalado failed to allege an
       injury that was concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent
       because he did not allege the ETS mandate applied to him or would
       soon apply to him. Wooden, 247 F.3d at 1284. Regalado’s argu-
       ments he was impacted by the CMS mandate do not confer stand-
       ing.
             Accordingly, we affirm the district court because Regalado’s
       claims are moot and he lacks standing.5
              AFFIRMED.

       5 Regalado also asserts the defendants are not entitled to sovereign immunity
       because of alleged wrongdoing related to the COVID-19 virus and vaccine. As
       Regalado’s claims are moot and he lacks standing, we need not address sover-
       eign immunity.