Court Opinion

ID: 9957308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-04 14:00:50.811513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:15.483242
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11997    Document: 58-1     Date Filed: 04/04/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                               [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-11997
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       JUSTIN ANDRE LAMOUREUX,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-14010-AMC
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-11997       Document: 58-1      Date Filed: 04/04/2024      Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   23-11997

       Before NEWSOM, LAGOA, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Justin Lamoureux, proceeding pro se, challenges two district
       court’s orders: (1) an order remanding a pending civil action against
       him brought by the State of Florida, which Lamoureux had re-
       moved to federal court, back to Florida state court for lack of juris-
       diction; and (2) order denying reconsideration of that remand or-
       der. For the following reasons, we take judicial notice of the state
       court’s order that dismissed the state court case against Lamoureux
       following the district court’s remand, and we dismiss Lamoureux’s
       appeal because it is now moot.
              We will sua sponte consider whether we have jurisdiction
       and review jurisdictional issues de novo. In re Walker, 515 F.3d 1204,
       1210 (11th Cir. 2008).
              A federal court has no authority to give opinions upon moot
       questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules
       of law that cannot affect the matter at issue in the case before it.
       Church of Scientology of Cal. v. United States, 506 U.S. 9, 12 (1992). An
       issue is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with
       respect to which the court can give meaningful relief. Christian
       Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir.
       2011). As a general principle, settlement between the parties in lit-
       igation renders the case moot. Yunker v. Allianceone Receivables
       Mgmt., 701 F.3d 369, 372 (11th Cir. 2012).
USCA11 Case: 23-11997       Document: 58-1      Date Filed: 04/04/2024      Page: 3 of 4

       23-11997                Opinion of the Court                           3

                Generally, we will not consider evidence from or the record
       of another case if the district court did not consider it first. Young
       v. City of Augusta ex rel. DeVaney, 59 F.3d 1160, 1168 (11th Cir. 1995).
       However, we have the power to do so and review such requests
       on a case-by-case basis, granting motions to supplement the record
       where additional information would be dispositive or informative
       and where the interests of justice and judicial economy would be
       served. Id. Even if the parties did not move to supplement the
       record, we may take judicial notice of a fact that is not subject to
       reasonable dispute and can be accurately and readily determined
       from a reliable source. Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 947 F.3d 649,
       651–52 (11th Cir. 2020). For example, state court records of an in-
       mate’s postconviction proceedings generally satisfy this standard.
       Id.
              Federal Rule of Evidence 201 governs judicial notice of ad-
       judicative facts and provides that a court may act sua sponte at any
       stage of the proceeding to “judicially notice a fact that is not subject
       to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily
       determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
       questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2), (c)(1), (d).
              Here, we take judicial notice of the state court’s order dis-
       missing the underlying action after it was remanded. See Young, 59
       F.3d at 1168; Paez, 947 F.3d at 651–52; Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2), (c)(1),
       (d). Because we may no longer offer Lamoureux meaningful relief,
       his appeal is moot, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See
USCA11 Case: 23-11997       Document: 58-1       Date Filed: 04/04/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                        Opinion of the Court                  23-11997

       Christian Coal. of Fla., 662 F.3d at 1189; Church of Scientology of Cal.,
       506 U.S. at 12. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. 1
              DISMISSED.

       1 Lamoureux’s “Objection to Venue, Motion to Change Venue” and his Mo-

       tion for Initial Hearing En Banc are DENIED.