Court Opinion

ID: 9382953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 14:00:48.635142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.671077
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13476   Document: 56-1    Date Filed: 03/29/2023    Page: 1 of 16

                                              [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 21-13476
                         ____________________

        COREY J. ZINMAN,
                                                    Plaintiff-Appellant,
        versus
        NOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, INC.,
        SOUTH FLORIDA STADIUM LLC,
        BROWARD COUNTY,
        a Florida County and Political Subdivision
        of the State of Florida,
        BERTHA HENRY,
        individually,
        MIAMI-DADE COUNTY,
        a Florida County and Political Subdivision
        of the State of Florida, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 21-13476       Document: 56-1       Date Filed: 03/29/2023      Page: 2 of 16

        2                       Opinion of the Court                   21-13476

                                                        Defendants-Appellees.

                              ____________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Florida
                      D.C. Docket No. 0:21-cv-60723-RAR
                            ____________________

        Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, MARCUS, Circuit Judge, and
        MIZELLE,* District Judge.
        MARCUS, Circuit Judge:
                Corey Zinman attended law school at Nova Southeastern
        University (“NSU”) during the COVID-19 pandemic. To mitigate
        the spread of the virus, NSU required its students to wear masks
        while on campus. But Zinman didn’t want to, claiming it violated
        his sincerely held religious beliefs as a Jewish person. He requested
        a religious exemption from the school’s mask mandate to partici-
        pate in an in-person clinic at the Palm Beach County Public De-
        fender’s office unmasked, but the school and the Public Defender’s
        Office denied his request. He then sought a religious exemption to
        attend the law school’s in-person graduation ceremony at Hard

        * Honorable Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, United States District Judge for the
        Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
USCA11 Case: 21-13476      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023      Page: 3 of 16

        21-13476                Opinion of the Court                         3

        Rock Stadium (managed by Defendant South Florida Stadium
        (“SFS”)) unmasked, but that request was denied, too.
               This suit followed. Zinman’s Second Amended Complaint
        alleged six different counts, ranging from discrimination under the
        Civil Rights Act of 1964, to violations of the Religious Land Use and
        Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), to various constitutional
        violations under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, against seven defendants. Ulti-
        mately, the district court granted two motions to dismiss, conclud-
        ing that, with the mask mandates behind us, Zinman’s claims for
        injunctive relief had become moot, and that Zinman failed to state
        a claim under any of his theories. Along the way, the district court
        also denied a motion for sanctions filed by Zinman premised on
        allegedly false and misleading statements made by counsel for two
        of the defendants, and it granted a discovery motion filed by SFS in
        response to an overly burdensome request for production served
        by Zinman.
               None of Zinman’s claims are viable. His application for in-
        junctive relief is moot as to all of the defendants. Zinman’s dam-
        ages claims fare no better. His Title II claim fails because damages
        are not available under Title II of the Civil Rights Act. His Title VI
        claim fails because the Second Amended Complaint does not con-
        tain any factual allegations -- as it must -- from which we could infer
        that any of the masking decisions NSU made were animated by dis-
        criminatory intent. And his § 1983 claims fail because Zinman has
        not plausibly alleged that any of his constitutional rights were vio-
        lated. Accordingly, we affirm.
USCA11 Case: 21-13476      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023      Page: 4 of 16

        4                       Opinion of the Court                 21-13476

                                          I.
               The essential facts, drawn entirely from Zinman’s Second
        Amended Complaint, are these. Zinman started law school at NSU
        in August 2018 and graduated in May 2021. At the broadest level
        of generality, this lawsuit arises out of Zinman’s efforts to do two
        things without wearing a mask: (1) participate in an in-person
        Criminal Justice Field Placement Clinic that required participants
        to be masked; and (2) attend his in-person graduation ceremony at
        Hard Rock Stadium that required attendees to be masked. Zinman
        also raised more general objections to NSU’s policy requiring indi-
        viduals to be masked while on campus.
                In response to the pandemic, NSU adopted a policy that,
        based on recommendations from the CDC and local ordinances,
        required all NSU individuals -- students, faculty, staff, visitors, and
        clinic patients -- to wear a face covering while on campus or during
        the use of any NSU facility. But, according to Zinman, wearing a
        mask violates his sincerely held religious beliefs because “Judaism
        unequivocally prohibits any and all forms of idolatry” and forcing
        compliance “with the affirmative commands of so-called ‘experts’
        who claim to be able to save lives if people simply obey their com-
        mands without question -- otherwise known as false idols” violates
        this tenet of his faith. Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 46, 57.
               Based on his religious objection, on December 25, 2020, Zin-
        man sought an accommodation to the mask policy so that he could
        participate in a Criminal Justice Field Placement Clinic without be-
        ing required to mask up; NSU denied his request. He renewed his
USCA11 Case: 21-13476      Document: 56-1     Date Filed: 03/29/2023     Page: 5 of 16

        21-13476               Opinion of the Court                        5

        request again on December 30, but it too was denied. He then tried
        reaching out to the Palm Beach County Public Defender’s Office -
        - a participant in the clinic -- to request an accommodation, but his
        request was, again, denied. Rather than wear a mask, Zinman
        withdrew from the clinic.
                On January 22, 2021, NSU announced that it was “planning
        to hold commencement ceremonies with masks, physical distanc-
        ing, and completely outside with sanitized seating and facilities”
        and that “[t]o enable [it] to maintain appropriate physical distanc-
        ing . . . [NSU] [was] making arrangements to hold [its] series of
        graduating ceremonies where the Miami Dolphins play -- at the
        Hard Rock Stadium -- this May.” Id. ¶ 32.
                Zinman sent a letter to the dean of the NSU law school ask-
        ing NSU to amend its campus guidelines in order to accommodate
        his religious objection. An assistant dean for the school told him
        that NSU had the right to require students, staff, faculty, and visi-
        tors to wear masks while on university property.
               Upon learning that his request would not be honored, Zin-
        man sued Nova Southeastern University and South Florida Sta-
        dium in the United States District Court for the Southern District
        of Florida. His Second Amended Complaint lodged six counts
        against seven defendants in all (NSU, SFS, Broward County, Bertha
        Henry, Miami-Dade County, Palm Beach County, and Casey
        Haughwout). Two of the defendants (Palm Beach County and Ca-
        sey Haughwout) were never served and are therefore not part of
        the lawsuit.
USCA11 Case: 21-13476     Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023    Page: 6 of 16

        6                      Opinion of the Court               21-13476

               During the litigation, Zinman moved for sanctions, object-
        ing to certain statements made by counsel for NSU and SFS in their
        pleadings opposing Zinman’s motion for a preliminary injunction
        and in support of an application to dismiss the First Amended Com-
        plaint. Defendant SFS, in turn, sought a protective order because
        Zinman’s requests for production were too broad. The requests
        included “any and all photographs, videotapes or surveillance foot-
        age from all commencement ceremonies hosted by Hard Rock Sta-
        dium in May of 2021,” and “any photographs, videotapes or sur-
        veillance footage from the Floyd Mayweather/Logan Paul fight
        hosted by Hard Rock Stadium on Sunday, June 6, 2021.” Pl.’s First
        Request for Produc. of Docs., at 7–8.
              A magistrate judge, to whom the case had been referred,
        granted SFS’s motion for a protective order, finding that the video
        footage requested went far beyond Zinman’s discovery needs.
        Mot. Hr’g Tr. at 16:6–15. The magistrate judge also issued a Report
        and Recommendation recommending that the district court deny
        Zinman’s motion for sanctions and grant the defendants’ motions
        to dismiss the entire Second Amended Complaint. The district
        court agreed, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and dis-
        missed the case.
              This timely appeal followed.
                                        II.
               “We review the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule
        12(b)(6) de novo, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true
USCA11 Case: 21-13476      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023     Page: 7 of 16

        21-13476               Opinion of the Court                         7

        and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”
        Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. Sch. Bd., 48 F.4th 1222, 1229 (11th Cir. 2022).
        We review a district court’s denial of a motion for Rule 11 sanctions
        for an abuse of discretion. Peer v. Lewis, 606 F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th
        Cir. 2010). The same standard applies to the review of a trial
        court’s ruling on a motion for a protective order. Chi. Trib. Co. v.
        Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1309 (11th Cir. 2001)
        (per curiam). “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an
        incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making
        the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erro-
        neous.” Id.
               In each of the six counts in the Second Amended Complaint,
        Zinman sought both injunctive and declaratory relief and damages.
        He is not entitled to relief on any of his claims.
                                A. Injunctive Relief
               Zinman seeks injunctive and declaratory relief for all of his
        claims arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and § 1983. He
        does not challenge the district court’s dismissal of his RLUIPA
        claim (Count VI), so we do not address it. See United States v.
        Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) (“Typically,
        issues not raised in the initial brief on appeal are deemed aban-
        doned.”).
                                   i. NSU and SFS
             Zinman’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against
        NSU are moot because he is no longer a student there, and he does
USCA11 Case: 21-13476       Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023      Page: 8 of 16

        8                       Opinion of the Court                  21-13476

        not allege that he intends to return to NSU as a non-student. “Fed-
        eral courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Gardner v. Mutz, 962
        F.3d 1329, 1336 (11th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). Article III of the
        Constitution limits our jurisdiction to “[c]ases” and “[c]ontrover-
        sies.” U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “[T]hat means the plaintiff must have
        standing (a personal stake in the matter), and the case must not be
        moot (it must present a live, ongoing controversy that the court
        may redress).” Keister v. Bell, 29 F.4th 1239, 1249 (11th Cir. 2022)
        (citations omitted).
               A case becomes moot “if an event occurs that ends ‘any ac-
        tual controversy about the plaintiff[’s] particular legal rights.’” Id.
        at 1250 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). There is one rel-
        evant exception: a case may not become moot based on the
        “[m]ere voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct.” Troiano
        v. Supervisor of Elections, 382 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir. 2004) (al-
        teration in original) (citation omitted). That said, the “voluntary
        cessation” doctrine does not apply “when there is no reasonable
        expectation that the voluntarily ceased activity will, in fact, actually
        recur after the termination of the suit.” Id. at 1283. “When gov-
        ernment laws or policies have been challenged, the Supreme Court
        has held almost uniformly that cessation of the challenged behavior
        moots the suit.” Id. (collecting cases).
              Zinman’s case has become moot because he graduated from
        the law school in 2021; thus, he is not threatened with any harm
        from future masking decisions the law school may make. See Adler
        v. Duval Cnty. Sch. Bd., 112 F.3d 1475, 1477 (11th Cir. 1997)
USCA11 Case: 21-13476      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023     Page: 9 of 16

        21-13476               Opinion of the Court                         9

        (holding that students’ claims that school’s graduation ceremony
        policies violated the First Amendment were moot because the stu-
        dents had graduated). And because there is no reasonable expecta-
        tion -- indeed, there is virtually no expectation -- that Zinman will
        be forced by NSU to wear a mask after the termination of this suit,
        the voluntary cessation doctrine does not help him.
                Zinman’s claims for injunctive relief against SFS fail for the
        same reason. He only sought injunctive relief to enjoin SFS from
        requiring him to wear a mask at his law school graduation, and his
        graduation has long since passed. Moreover, Zinman never alleges
        in the Second Amended Complaint that he intends to return to SFS
        for a reason other than his graduation.
           ii. Broward County, Broward County Administrator Bertha
                        Henry, and Miami-Dade County
               Zinman’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against
        Broward County, Broward County Administrator Bertha Henry,
        and Miami-Dade County are moot first because an Executive Or-
        der issued by Governor Ron DeSantis, Executive Order 2021-102,
        eliminated the mask mandates in the counties. Beyond that, the
        Florida Legislature has amended Florida Statute § 252.38 -- the pro-
        vision governing the emergency powers of political subdivisions --
        to add a number of restrictions on a local government’s ability to
        impose future health-related emergency orders. Fla. Stat.
        § 252.38(4) (2021). These orders are now limited in duration to
        seven days; they can be renewed for a total of only forty-two days;
        they are subject to a strict scrutiny standard of review; and they are
USCA11 Case: 21-13476     Document: 56-1       Date Filed: 03/29/2023    Page: 10 of 16

        10                     Opinion of the Court                 21-13476

        subject to invalidation by the Governor. Id. In light of these es-
        sential changes in the law, there can be no reasonable expectation
        that Broward County, any administrator employed by the county,
        or Miami-Dade County will impose the same or even similar man-
        dates as those in effect when Zinman initiated this suit -- in fact,
        they cannot do so except under exceedingly narrow circumstances.
        See id.; cf. also Coral Springs St. Sys., Inc. v. City of Sunrise, 371
        F.3d 1320, 1329 (11th Cir. 2004).
                                    B. Damages
              That brings us to Zinman’s claims for damages. They are as
        doomed as his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief. Each
        theory is plainly foreclosed by binding caselaw.
                                      i. Title II
                Zinman’s claim for damages under Title II of the Civil Rights
        Act -- governing public accommodations -- fails because damages
        are not available under Title II. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. “A Title II
        suit is . . . private in form only. When a plaintiff brings an action
        under that Title, he cannot recover damages.” Newman v. Piggie
        Park Enters., Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 401–02 (1968) (per curiam); see also
        Houston v. Marod Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1329 (11th
        Cir. 2013) (“Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 permits injunc-
        tive relief only[.]” (citing Newman, 390 U.S. at 402)).
                                     ii. Title VI
              Unlike under Title II, compensatory damages are available
        pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
USCA11 Case: 21-13476      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023     Page: 11 of 16

        21-13476                Opinion of the Court                        11

        discrimination in any program that receives federal financial assis-
        tance. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. But to be entitled to this form of
        relief, a plaintiff must establish discriminatory intent. Liese v. In-
        dian River Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334, 346 (11th Cir. 2012).
        The Second Amended Complaint does not contain any allegations
        from which we could infer that NSU enacted its mask policy with
        discriminatory intent. Zinman is not entitled to damages.
               The only facts Zinman points to as evidence of discrimina-
        tory intent in the Second Amended Complaint are his conclusory
        assertions that the defendants intentionally discriminated against
        him. A complaint fails to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
        8(a)’s well-established pleading standard if it offers only “labels and
        conclusions,” “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
        action,” or “naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhance-
        ment.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (alteration in
        original) (quotation marks and citation omitted). That is Zinman’s
        Second Amended Complaint in a nutshell.
               Zinman’s cite to the Supreme Court’s decision in
        Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 510–11 (2002), is mis-
        placed. There, the Supreme Court held that, in a Title VII case, a
        plaintiff need not satisfy all the elements of a prima facie case under
        McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), to meet
        his pleading burden and survive a motion to dismiss. Swierkiewicz,
        534 U.S. at 511. Zinman cannot invoke Swierkiewicz, however, to
        sidestep the plausibility standard set forth in Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
        Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Iqbal. Like any other plaintiff,
USCA11 Case: 21-13476      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023     Page: 12 of 16

        12                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13476

        he must still “set out enough ‘factual content t[o] allow[ ] [a] court
        to draw the reasonable inference’ that [defendant] is liable for the
        intentional . . . discrimination alleged.” Equal Emp. Opportunity
        Comm’n v. Catastrophe Mgmt. Sols., 852 F.3d 1018, 1023 (11th Cir.
        2016) (alterations in original) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79).
        He has not done so here. Thus, for example, we know nothing
        about the claimed religions or nationalities of any of the supposedly
        “similarly situated” individuals to Zinman who were not required
        to wear masks. There is, in short, nothing in the Second Amended
        Complaint to allow the inference to be drawn that NSU was ani-
        mated by discriminatory intent.
                                 iii. 42 U.S.C. § 1983
                Zinman does not have standing to bring a § 1983 damages
        claim against Miami-Dade County because he has alleged no harm
        attributable to the conduct of the county. “The constitutional re-
        quirements of standing are that [1] the plaintiff must have suffered
        an injury in fact . . . . [2] there must be a causal connection between
        the injury and the conduct complained of . . . . and [3] it must be
        likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be re-
        dressed by a favorable decision.” Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199,
        1206 (11th Cir. 2006) (alterations in original) (quotation marks and
        citation omitted). The only connection between Miami-Dade
        County and Zinman’s injury is that Hard Rock Stadium -- the loca-
        tion of his law school graduation -- is within the county. But the
        injury (that Zinman wear a mask to graduation) is not traceable to
        the county because the county no longer had a mask mandate in
USCA11 Case: 21-13476     Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023    Page: 13 of 16

        21-13476               Opinion of the Court                       13

        effect when Zinman graduated. Accordingly, the discussion in the
        remainder of this section applies only to Zinman’s § 1983 damages
        claims against the other defendants.
               We assume, without deciding, that NSU and SFS imposed
        their mask mandates as “State actors” under § 1983. See Rayburn
        ex rel. Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir. 2001)
        (“[W]e must first determine whether [private defendants] are State
        actors because § 1983 only provides for claims to redress State ac-
        tion.”).
                Free Exercise. Zinman has failed to state a claim for a free
        exercise violation arising under the First Amendment because Zin-
        man does not explain why the mask mandates were not neutral
        and generally applicable. Neutral rules of general application are
        subject only to rational basis review. See Church of the Lukumi
        Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531–32 (1993).
        Under this standard, laws or policies are “presumed to be valid”
        and need only have a rational tie to a legitimate government inter-
        est. Deen v. Egleston, 597 F.3d 1223, 1230 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation
        omitted). The adoption of mask mandates easily passed this test:
        Broward County, its administrators, NSU, and SFS had a legitimate
        interest in limiting the spread of COVID-19, and they could have
        fairly relied on CDC guidelines regarding masking requirements.
               Free Speech. Zinman has also failed to state a claim for a
        free speech violation because wearing a mask is not speech or ex-
        pressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. Expressive
        conduct may fall within the ambit of the First Amendment if two
USCA11 Case: 21-13476      Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023     Page: 14 of 16

        14                      Opinion of the Court                 21-13476

        criteria are met: (1) there must be an “intent to convey a particu-
        larized message”; and (2) the likelihood must be great that “the
        message would be understood by those who viewed it.” Texas v.
        Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989) (citation omitted). The second
        prong asks “whether the reasonable person would interpret [the
        expressive conduct] as some sort of message, not whether an ob-
        server would necessarily infer a specific message.” Holloman ex
        rel. Holloman v. Harland, 370 F.3d 1252, 1270 (11th Cir. 2004) (em-
        phasis in original).
                 Zinman’s claim fails the second prong. The likelihood is
        exceedingly remote and attenuated that a reasonable passerby ob-
        serving Zinman without a mask on would interpret his unmasked
        status as an attempt to convey some sort of message. There are so
        many more probable explanations for a person’s decision to go un-
        masked that have nothing to do with conveying any sort of mes-
        sage -- political, religious, or otherwise. Thus, for example, a per-
        son may not be masked for medical reasons, or because he left his
        mask at home, or perhaps just on account of a personal dislike for
        masking.
                Freedom of Assembly and Association. Zinman has utterly
        failed to state a claim for a violation of his right to assemble or as-
        sociate. Mask mandates do not prevent Zinman from associating
        with whomever he wants to associate with or assembling with an-
        yone; he would simply have to be masked when doing so.
              Substantive Due Process. Zinman offers two substantive
        due process claims: that mask mandates violate his fundamental
USCA11 Case: 21-13476     Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023    Page: 15 of 16

        21-13476               Opinion of the Court                       15

        right to bodily integrity, and that they violate his right to freedom
        of movement. He is wrong on both counts. Substantive due pro-
        cess challenges to fundamental rights are subject to strict scrutiny
        review, while challenges that do not implicate fundamental rights
        are subject to rational basis review. Doe v. Moore, 410 F.3d 1337,
        1343–1345 (11th Cir. 2005). The choice to not wear a mask does
        not fall within any fundamental right to bodily integrity. And mask
        mandates pass rational basis review, so Zinman's bodily integrity
        theory fails. Moreover, a mask requirement does not prevent Zin-
        man from moving freely.
                             C. Motion for Sanctions
                Zinman also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion
        for sanctions. We have carefully reviewed each of the statements
        Zinman suggests are false or misleading. None are. At bottom,
        Zinman’s motion sought to convert routine legal arguments --
        made every day by defense counsel in federal courts around the
        country -- into sanctionable conduct. It practically goes without
        saying that the district court acted well within its discretion in
        denying the motion. See Zinman v. L.A. Fitness Int’l LLC, No. 21-
        12385, 2022 WL 8019384, at *1 (11th Cir. Oct. 14, 2022) (concluding
        that Zinman’s motion for sanctions against defense counsel in a
        similar case was frivolous and that the district court did not abuse
        its discretion in denying it).
                         D. Motion for Protective Order
USCA11 Case: 21-13476     Document: 56-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2023     Page: 16 of 16

        16                     Opinion of the Court                 21-13476

               Finally, Zinman appeals the magistrate judge’s grant of SFS’s
        renewed motion for a protective order. But Zinman did not appeal
        the magistrate judge’s ruling to the district court, and we are “with-
        out jurisdiction to hear appeals directly from federal magistrates.”
        United States v. Schultz, 565 F.3d 1353, 1359 (11th Cir. 2009) (cita-
        tion omitted). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to resolve Zinman’s claim
        as to the protective order.
              AFFIRMED.