Court Opinion

ID: 9965652
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 00:00:50.661267+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:21.183971
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-30429           Document: 68-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/02/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                Fifth Circuit

                                  ____________                                FILED
                                                                           May 2, 2024
                                   No. 23-30429
                                                                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                  ____________                                Clerk

Kendra Greenwald,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellee,

                                         versus

Elizabeth Murrill; Chris Eskew; James M. LeBlanc;
Robert P. Hodges,

                                          Defendants—Appellants.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                           USDC No. 2:22-CV-2371
                  ______________________________

Before King, Ho, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
      This case involves the repeated arrest of Kendra Greenwald for her
continual failure to abide by Louisiana’s Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (“SORNA”). Greenwald filed suit against several state and
city officials in their official capacities, alleging violations of her
constitutional rights. The district court dismissed all claims except the

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-30429       Document: 68-1       Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                 No. 23-30429

substantive due process claim against the State Defendants. These State
Defendants appeal the denial of their motion to dismiss, arguing that
sovereign immunity bars Greenwald’s claims, that the Ex parte Young
exception does not apply, and that Greenwald’s claims are Heck-barred.
However, we decline to reach the merits of the State Defendants’ appeal
because we find that we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a superseded
original complaint. For the following reasons, we DISMISS AS MOOT
the State Defendants’ appeal.
       I. Factual Background
       On July 12, 2012, Kendra Greenwald was convicted of carnal
knowledge of a juvenile and sentenced to two years’ probation. Because this
conviction is a qualifying sex offense, Greenwald is required to follow the
registration requirements laid out in SORNA. SORNA requires those
persons convicted of a qualifying sex offense to, among other things, register
with the sheriff’s office for the parish in which the person resides, provide
information such as name and phone numbers to the appropriate law
enforcement agencies, and notify law enforcement of any change in address
or parish residence. See generally La. Stat. Ann. § 15:542–15:542.1.3.
       Greenwald violated SORNA less than two months after her
sentencing when she failed to pay the required fees and submit monthly
supervision reports, missed an office appointment, and failed to complete the
registration requirements. The state court revoked her probation, and
Greenwald served the remainder of her sentence in prison. About four
months after completing her sentence, Greenwald again violated SORNA
and was arrested for failure to follow registration requirements. She pleaded
guilty to the charges against her on May 2, 2014, and was sentenced to
eighteen months’ probation.

                                      2
Case: 23-30429       Document: 68-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                No. 23-30429

       Greenwald asserts that she has a seizure disorder and mental
disabilities that prevent her from complying with SORNA’s requirements.
Prior to her conviction in 2012, Greenwald’s attorneys challenged her
competency to stand trial. After six months of “competency restoration,”
the court found that Greenwald was competent to stand trial, and her July
2012 conviction followed. However, Greenwald alleges that her seizure
disorder has since become “much more severe.” Based on her below-average
mental capabilities, Greenwald asserts that she could not comply with
SORNA’s requirements, leading to multiple arrests for her failure to register
as mandated. Greenwald was arrested for a third time in Orleans Parish on
January 22, 2015. The Orleans Parish District Attorney declined to press
charges. Greenwald was then arrested for a fourth time in Orleans Parish on
June 29, 2015. Thereafter, Greenwald’s court-appointed defender requested
another competency hearing, and the court ordered an evaluation. The court
found her incompetent to stand trial and again ordered competency
restoration. On September 2, 2015, the court released Greenwald on her own
recognizance, and the criminal charge for failure to register remained
pending against her. On October 28, 2015, the court held another
competency hearing, after which the court found Greenwald incompetent to
stand trial.
       After Greenwald was declared incompetent, she was arrested in
Orleans Parish for a fifth time on February 17, 2016, and for a sixth time on
June 15, 2017. Following these two arrests, on June 23, 2017, the state court
found Greenwald to be an “unrestorable incompetent.” See La. Code
Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 648(B) (explaining procedure where the court
finds that “the defendant will not attain the capacity to proceed with [her]
trial in the foreseeable future”). On October 24, 2017, Greenwald was
arrested for the seventh and final time in Jefferson Parish for failure to
register under SORNA.

                                      3
 Case: 23-30429          Document: 68-1          Page: 4      Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                      No. 23-30429

        II. Procedural Background
        In October 2021, Greenwald filed suit in the Middle District of
Louisiana against Jeff Landry, Attorney General of Louisiana; James
LeBlanc, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
Corrections; Kevin Reeves, Superintendent of the Louisiana State Police
(“LSP”); Layne Barnum, Deputy Superintendent of LSP; Latoya Cantrell,
Mayor of New Orleans; and Shaun Ferguson, Superintendent of the New
Orleans Police Department. These defendants can be divided into two
groups: the State Defendants (Landry, LeBlanc, Reeves, and Barnum, who
serve the State of Louisiana)1 and the City Defendants (Cantrell and
Ferguson, who serve the City of New Orleans). Greenwald asserted against
all defendants violations of her procedural and substantive due process
rights, as well as a claim under the Eighth Amendment alleging cruel and
unusual punishment. Greenwald requested a declaration that her
constitutional rights were violated, an injunction preventing future arrest,
and money damages.
        Upon the State Defendants’ motion, the Middle District transferred
the case to the Eastern District of Louisiana. On June 5, 2023, the district
court in the Eastern District granted the City Defendants’ motion to dismiss
all claims against them. The district court also granted the State Defendants’
motion to dismiss all claims except for the substantive due process claim.
Finally, the district court granted Greenwald leave to amend her complaint

        _____________________
        1
          There have been several party substitutions for the State Defendants because new
individuals now fill these roles. Elizabeth Murrill has been substituted as Attorney General
in place of Jeff Landry, and Chris Eskew has been substituted in place of Layne Barnum as
Deputy Superintendent. Lamar Davis replaced Kevin Reeves as Superintendent, and Davis
was subsequently replaced by Robert Hodges.

                                             4
 Case: 23-30429         Document: 68-1          Page: 5      Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                      No. 23-30429

within twenty days “to the extent that she can remedy the deficiencies
identified herein.”
        On June 23, 2023, Greenwald timely filed an amended complaint.2
Thereafter, on June 29, 2023, the State Defendants filed a notice of appeal
challenging the district court’s denial of their motion to dismiss the
substantive due process claim as pleaded in Greenwald’s original complaint.
        III. Mootness
        “Mootness is related to the constitutional prohibition against
exercising jurisdiction absent a case or controversy.” New Orleans Ass’n of
Cemetery Tour Guides & Cos. v. New Orleans Archdiocesan Cemeteries, 56 F.4th
1026, 1033 (5th Cir. 2023) (citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1).
“[F]ederal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect
the rights of litigants in the case before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404
U.S. 244, 246 (1971). “Because a moot case does not affect the rights of its
litigants, i.e., there is no case or controversy, it is beyond the purview of a
federal court to decide.” New Orleans Ass’n of Cemetery Tour Guides & Cos.,
56 F.4th at 1033. “Events both before and after the filing of a claim may
render a claimant’s case moot” because the controversy posed must be
present throughout the entirety of the litigation. Baccus v. Parrish, 45 F.3d
958, 961 (5th Cir. 1995).
        In New Orleans Ass’n of Cemetery Tour Guides & Companies v. New
Orleans Archdiocesan Cemeteries, this court held that an appeal was moot
because the underlying complaint had been superseded by an amended
complaint. 56 F.4th at 1033–34. There, the court held that the plaintiff’s first

        _____________________
        2
         The State Defendants have since filed a motion to strike Greenwald’s amended
complaint in the district court. This procedural posture reaffirms our decision to dismiss
the current appeal as moot and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

                                            5
Case: 23-30429       Document: 68-1       Page: 6    Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                 No. 23-30429

amended complaint was “a legal nullity because it was not incorporated by
the subsequent second amended complaint.” Id. at 1033. “An amended
complaint supersedes the original complaint and renders it of no legal effect
unless the amended complaint specifically refers to and adopts or
incorporates by reference the earlier pleading.” Id. (quoting King v. Dogan,
31 F.3d 344, 346 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam)). And, we held, “incorporation
by reference must be ‘with a degree of specificity and clarity which would
enable the responding party to easily determine the nature and extent of the
incorporation.’” Id. (quoting Carroll v. Fort James Corp., 470 F.3d 1171, 1176
(5th Cir. 2006)). Because the plaintiff’s amended complaint did not mention,
“much less successfully incorporate,” the earlier complaint, the earlier
complaint had no legal effect. Id. As a result, we could not consider an appeal
stemming from that earlier complaint. Id. at 1034.
       We reach the same conclusion here. In Greenwald’s Rule 28(j) letter,
she asserts that her first amended complaint “did not incorporate the original
complaint” but rather restated her allegations anew. Greenwald further
argues that this appeal “was taken from a null pleading” and therefore the
Court lacks jurisdiction. We agree. Because Greenwald filed an amended
complaint that did not specifically incorporate her original complaint, the
original complaint is now a legal nullity. See Falck N. Cal. Corp. v. Scott
Griffith Collaborative Sols., LLC, 25 F.4th 763, 766 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding
that “the complaint challenged on appeal is a legal nullity even if much like
the operative complaint” and therefore the appeal is moot). We cannot
entertain an appeal arising out of the original complaint where the State
Defendants’ appeal wholly concerns claims raised in the original complaint,

                                      6
 Case: 23-30429          Document: 68-1          Page: 7       Date Filed: 05/02/2024

                                       No. 23-30429

especially where Greenwald made substantive changes to her claims in the
amended complaint.3 We therefore lack jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
        IV. Conclusion
        Accordingly, we DISMISS AS MOOT the State Defendants’
appeal.

        _____________________
        3
          As noted by the State Defendants in their own Rule 28(j) letter, our decision today
does not prevent the State Defendants from re-raising their sovereign immunity arguments
in a subsequent motion to dismiss the amended—and sole legally operative—complaint.

                                             7