Court Opinion

ID: 9367018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-30 18:00:54.519631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:56.710321
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13008    Document: 13-1     Date Filed: 01/30/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 22-13008
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
                                                      Plaintiff-Appellee,
       versus
       MICHAEL D. BEITER, JR.,

                                                  Defendant- Appellant.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 0:09-cr-60202-JIC-1
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13008      Document: 13-1       Date Filed: 01/30/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13008

       Before LAGOA, BRASHER and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Michael D. Beiter, Jr., a federal prisoner proceeding pro se,
       appeals the District Court’s denial as moot of his pro se motion to
       compel the Supervisory Assistant Federal Public Defender
       (“AFPD”) to surrender his entire case file from his criminal case.
       On appeal, he repeats the merits of his underlying motion, includ-
       ing that he needs his case file from the AFPD to prepare a post-con-
       viction motion, and asks this Court to vacate the District Court’s
       order and demand that it set a deadline within which the AFPD
       must produce his file.
              The government responds by moving for summary affir-
       mance of the District Court’s order denying Beiter’s motion and
       argues that Beiter’s appeal is frivolous because the AFPD had al-
       ready agreed to produce the case file, so the District Court did not
       need to order him to do so, and Beiter failed to establish why it was
       so urgent that the AFPD produced his file immediately when the
       time period for him to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 post-conviction mo-
       tion for relief expired over ten years ago.
              Summary disposition is appropriate, in part, where “the po-
       sition of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that
       there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,
       or where, as is more frequently the case, the appeal is frivolous.”
USCA11 Case: 22-13008      Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 01/30/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-13008                Opinion of the Court                         3

       Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir.
       1969).
              Under Article III of the Constitution, a federal court’s juris-
       diction is limited to active “cases” and “controversies.” United
       States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184, 1189 (11th Cir. 2008). A case on
       appeal becomes moot and ceases to be an active case or contro-
       versy when an event that occurred at a stage of litigation deprives
       the court of the ability to give the appellant meaningful relief. Id.;
       see also Christian Coal of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182,
       1189 (11th Cir. 2011).
               Here, the government is entitled to summary affirmance of
       the District Court’s order denying Beiter’s motion to compel the
       AFPD to turn over his entire case file because Beiter’s appeal is friv-
       olous. Groendyke Transp., 406 F.2d at 1162. The record demon-
       strates that the AFPD responded to Beiter’s motion to compel and
       confirmed that he was reviewing the voluminous case file to ensure
       that it did not violate the District Court’s protective order. Beiter
       has not demonstrated why he suddenly, 11 years after his convic-
       tion, needs his entire case file from the AFPD within 10 business
       days. After the AFPD responded and agreed to provide Beiter with
       his case file after he finished reviewing it, there was no live contro-
       versy for the District Court to resolve and no relief for it to grant
       Beiter, so Beiter’s motion to compel was moot. See Al-Arian, 514
       F.3d at 1189. Thus, Beiter’s appeal is frivolous, and the govern-
       ment is entitled to summary affirmance.
USCA11 Case: 22-13008     Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 01/30/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court                22-13008

              Therefore, we GRANT the government’s motion for sum-
       mary affirmance of the District Court’s denial of Beiter’s pro se mo-
       tion to compel, and DENY as moot its motion to stay the briefing
       schedule.