Don Kozich v. Ann Deibert
708 F. App'x 644
| 11th Cir. | 2018Background
- Kozich, a pro se plaintiff, leased an apartment from Reliance Progresso Associates; Reliance issued a notice of nonrenewal for alleged unsanitary conditions and refusal to permit entry.
- Kozich remained after his lease expired; Reliance obtained a final judgment and writ of possession in state court on April 20, 2015, and the parties dispute whether Kozich timely appealed.
- Kozich sued in federal court under the Low Income Housing Tax Credit statute and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the nonrenewal and eviction violated § 42 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and sought injunctive and declaratory relief.
- The district court denied Kozich’s TRO; Kozich was evicted on July 23, 2015.
- The district court dismissed the federal action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rooker–Feldman and for failure to state a claim; Kozich appealed.
- The Eleventh Circuit concluded the appeal was moot because the eviction had already been enforced and there was no reasonable expectation the same eviction would recur, and affirmed; pending motions were denied as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court can grant prospective relief from the eviction | Kozich sought injunctive and declaratory relief to overturn or enjoin the eviction | Reliance argued the case was moot because Kozich already vacated the apartment | Moot — relief would be meaningless because the eviction was already enforced |
| Whether the case is capable of repetition yet evading review | Kozich implicitly contended the eviction process could recur and evade review | Reliance argued no reasonable expectation Kozich would face the same landlord and eviction again | Exception inapplicable — no reasonable expectation of recurrence |
| Whether Rooker–Feldman bars the federal suit | Kozich sought federal relief despite a state-court judgment | Reliance argued Rooker–Feldman prohibits federal review of state-court judgments | Court did not decide — unnecessary after finding mootness |
| Whether Kozich stated a claim under § 42 / § 1983 | Kozich alleged statutory and constitutional violations tied to the eviction/nonrenewal | Reliance argued claims were insufficient and/or barred | Court did not decide — unnecessary after finding mootness |
Key Cases Cited
- Rooker v. Fid. Tr. Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923) (establishes that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state-court judgments)
- D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983) (limits lower federal-court review of state-court adjudications)
- Akanthos Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Atlanticus Holdings Corp., 734 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2013) (appellate affirmance may rest on any record-supported ground)
- CAMP Legal Defense Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 451 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2006) (mootness reviewed de novo)
- Florida Ass’n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. State of Fla. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2000) (defines when a case becomes moot)
- Dow Jones & Co. v. Kaye, 256 F.3d 1251 (11th Cir. 2001) (mootness is assessed based on current events)
- Arcia v. Sec’y of Fla., 772 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2014) (sets two-part test for "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception)
- In re Ware, 562 F. App’x 850 (11th Cir. 2014) (appeal moot where relief cannot be granted because foreclosure sale already occurred)