Court Opinion

ID: 9378769
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-13 16:05:00.152169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:57.008252
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11943   Document: 21-1    Date Filed: 03/13/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 22-11943
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       MICHAEL DEWAYNE ARRINGTON,
                                                   Plaintiff-Appellant,
       versus
       MIAMI DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT,
       ALBERTO CARVALHO,
       individually and in his official capacity as
       Superintendent and/or Director of Miami-Dade
       County Public Schools District,
       GEORGE T. BAKER AVIATION SCHOOL,
       SEAN GALLAGAN,
       individually and in his official capacity as
       Principal of George T. Baker Aviation School,
       GEORGE W. SANDS,
USCA11 Case: 22-11943      Document: 21-1       Date Filed: 03/13/2023   Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                22-11943

       individually and in his official capacity as
       Assistant Principal, George T. Baker
       Aviation School,

                                                      Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-24114-JEM
                           ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
             Michael Arrington appeals the district court’s denial of his
       motion under Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., seeking relief from prior
       adverse decisions of this Court. After careful review, we affirm.
               The relevant background is as follows. Arrington filed a fed-
       eral civil-rights lawsuit alleging that he was discriminated against
       based on his race while enrolled in an aviation program at a public
       technical college in Florida. The district court dismissed the case
       for failure to state a plausible claim of race discrimination. We af-
       firmed the district court on appeal and denied Arrington’s motion
       to recall the mandate. See Arrington v. Miami Dade Cnty. Pub.
       Sch. Dist. (“Arrington I”), 835 F. App’x 418 (11th Cir. 2020).
USCA11 Case: 22-11943      Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       22-11943               Opinion of the Court                         3

              Arrington returned to the district court and moved for relief
       under Rule 60(b), asserting that Arrington I contained “blatant mis-
       takes.” The district court denied the motion, and Arrington ap-
       pealed. Again, we affirmed, holding that Arrington I was law of
       the case and that no exception applied. Arrington v. Miami Dade
       Cnty. Pub. Sch. Dist. (“Arrington II”), No. 21-11569, 2021 WL
       4940820 (11th Cir. Oct. 22, 2021).
              Undeterred, Arrington filed another Rule 60(b) motion as-
       serting that Arrington I was wrongly decided. The district court
       denied the motion as barred by law of case, reasoning that the is-
       sues Arrington raised were expressly decided against him in Arring-
       ton I and Arrington II. That order is the subject of this appeal.
              We review de novo the district court’s application of the
       law-of-the-case doctrine. Alphamed, Inc. v. B. Braun Med., Inc.,
       367 F.3d 1280, 1285 (11th Cir. 2004). The law-of-the-case doctrine
       bars relitigation of issues that were decided either explicitly or by
       necessary implication in a prior appeal. Oladeinde v. City of Bir-
       mingham, 230 F.3d 1275, 1288 (11th Cir. 2000). Nevertheless, we
       may reconsider an issue if, among other things, the “prior decision
       was clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice.” Id.
             Here, the district court properly concluded that law of the
       case barred Arrington’s second Rule 60(b) motion. Arrington
       maintains that Arrington I is not binding because it was clearly er-
       roneous and will work manifest injustice. But he does not identify
       any specific factual or legal error in that prior decision. And having
       reviewed his allegations for a third time, we are not persuaded that
USCA11 Case: 22-11943     Document: 21-1     Date Filed: 03/13/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court               22-11943

       the prior decision was clearly erroneous. Moreover, we already
       held in Arrington II that Arrington I is law of the case and that it
       barred a Rule 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration on the same
       grounds as the present motion. Our ruling in Arrington II is itself
       law of the case and provides yet another basis for denial of Arring-
       ton’s most recent motion. See Oladeinde, 230 F.3d at 1288.
             For these reasons, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.