Court Opinion

ID: 9404637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-23 18:00:31.436398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:15.967280
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-50971      Document: 00516797326       Page: 1     Date Filed: 06/23/2023

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

                                ____________                             FILED
                                                                     June 23, 2023
                                  No. 22-50971
                                                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                ____________                             Clerk

   Sachindra Kanna Koppula; Sindhu Penugonda,

                                                          Plaintiffs—Appellants,

                                      versus

   Ur M. Jaddou, Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services;
   Antony Blinken, Secretary, U.S. Department of State,

                                            Defendants—Appellees.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:22-CV-844
                   ______________________________

   Before Elrod, Ho, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   James C. Ho, Circuit Judge:
         This is an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction. Koppula
   v. Jaddou, No. 1:22-CV-844-RP, 2022 WL 18034367 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 2,
   2022). While this appeal was pending, the district court subsequently
   dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims. Koppula v. Jaddou, No. 1:22-CV-844-RP, 2023
   WL 3470904 (W.D. Tex. May 15, 2023). Accordingly, we must dismiss this
   appeal as moot. After all, there is no need for a preliminary injunction to
   preserve the status quo during the pendency of trial court proceedings that
   are now over.
Case: 22-50971        Document: 00516797326           Page: 2    Date Filed: 06/23/2023

                                       No. 22-50971

            A denial of permanent relief moots the appeal from a denial of
   preliminary relief. We have previously affirmed this principle in an
   unpublished opinion. See Wagner v. Campuzano, 548 F. App’x 133, 134 (5th
   Cir. 2013) (“[D]uring the pendency of [Plaintiff’s] appeal, the district court
   entered a final judgment dismissing [Plaintiff’s] . . . complaint . . . .
   Accordingly, the instant appeal, which challenges only the denial of
   preliminary injunctive relief, is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as moot.”).
   Our sister circuit has likewise held “that an appeal from the denial of a
   preliminary injunction motion becomes moot when final judgment issues
   because the district court’s denial of the motion merges with the final
   judgment.” Capriole v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 991 F.3d 339, 343 (1st Cir.
   2021).
            The Supreme Court reached this same conclusion over a century ago.
   It explained that, when a district court denies preliminary injunctive relief
   and then dismisses the case, the losing party can only appeal the dismissal:
            An application for an interlocutory injunction . . . was denied . . . . The
            decree . . . dismissed the action. Plaintiff . . . appealed . . . from the
            refusal of the temporary injunction. Shortly afterwards he took an
            appeal . . . from the . . . final decree dismissing the action. The latter
            appeal is in accord with correct practice, since the denial of the
            interlocutory application was merged in the final decree. The first
            appeal . . . will be dismissed.
   Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 44 (1920). See also Pacific Telephone &
   Telegraph Co. v. Kuykendall, 265 U.S. 196, 198, 205 (1924) (“After the denial
   of the temporary injunction, the District Judge heard the case on a motion to
   dismiss . . . and granted the motion . . . . [T]he appeal from the interlocutory
   decree . . . was merged in the appeal from the final decree . . . and therefore
   should be dismissed.”).
            The Court recently restated this conclusion in terms of mootness:

                                             2
Case: 22-50971     Document: 00516797326           Page: 3   Date Filed: 06/23/2023

                                    No. 22-50971

          [Plaintiff] seeks review of the judgment . . . affirm[ing] the district
          court’s denial of [Plaintiff’s] motion for a preliminary injunction. The
          district court . . . has now entered final judgment dismissing
          [Plaintiff’s] claims . . . . We have previously dismissed interlocutory
          appeals from the denials of motions for temporary injunctions once
          final judgment has been entered. . . . [T]he case is remanded . . . with
          instructions to dismiss the appeal as moot.
   Harper ex rel. Harper v. Poway Unified School District, 549 U.S. 1262, 1262
   (2007) (citing Pacific Telephone, 265 U.S. at 205–6, and Shaffer, 252 U.S. at
   44).
          In accordance with these precedents, we dismiss this appeal as moot.

                                         3