Georgia Advocacy Office v. Theodore Jackson
19-14227
| 11th Cir. | Jul 14, 2021Background:
- Plaintiffs (Georgia Advocacy Office and two psychiatrically disabled female inmates) brought a class action challenging Fulton County Jail’s practice of long-term isolation in "mental health pods" and unsanitary cell conditions, asserting Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment, ADA, and Rehabilitation Act claims.
- The district court, after an evidentiary hearing, entered a preliminary injunction ordering at least four hours daily out-of-cell time (including outdoor time) and a court‑approved sanitation and therapeutic plan for affected pods.
- The district court later issued an addendum with detailed findings, explicitly addressing the PLRA’s need–narrowness–intrusiveness requirements.
- Defendants appealed the preliminary injunction to the Eleventh Circuit. The central legal question became whether the injunction expired under the PLRA’s § 3626(a)(2) 90‑day automatic expiration "unless" clause.
- The Eleventh Circuit majority held the preliminary injunction expired by operation of law because the district court did not convert it into a permanent injunction (i.e., enter a final judgment) within 90 days; the court dismissed the appeal as moot and vacated the district court orders.
- Judge Wilson dissented, arguing the district court’s finalized preliminary injunction and written PLRA findings were sufficient to prevent expiration and that the majority’s reading undermines preliminary injunctive relief’s protective purpose.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a PLRA § 3626(a)(2) preliminary injunction automatically expires after 90 days unless the court "makes the order final" | "Make the order final" means completing/finalizing the preliminary injunction and making the required need‑narrowness‑intrusiveness findings (the addendum suffices) | "Make the order final" requires entering a final judgment/permanent injunction (bench trial and final order) | Held for Defs: "make the order final" means convert to a permanent injunction/final judgment; the preliminary injunction expired by operation of law. |
| Whether the district court’s later written PLRA findings could prevent expiration | The addendum containing detailed PLRA findings satisfied the statute and avoided expiration | The addendum did not meet the statutory requirement of making the order final (a final judgment is required) | Held for Defs: need‑narrowness findings alone do not suffice; a separate final order/permanent injunction is required to avert expiration. |
| Mootness and appellate jurisdiction after expiration | Plaintiffs: appeal is live because district court finalized the injunction | Defendants: appeal is moot because the injunction expired; seek dismissal or alternate review under exceptions | Held for Defs: appeal moot; court dismissed appeal and vacated district court orders; no jurisdiction to reach PLRA compliance on merits. |
| Applicability of "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception | Plaintiffs argued the case would not evade review | Defendants invoked the exception to permit review despite mootness | Held for Plaintiffs: exception inapplicable—future injunctions can be reviewed when entered as permanent injunctions; this dispute is not one that will evade review. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 778 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2015) (interpreting PLRA § 3626(a)(2) and holding expiration by operation of law can moot appeals)
- Rich v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Corr., 716 F.3d 525 (11th Cir. 2013) (discussing voluntary cessation and when reforms can moot injunctive relief)
- Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390 (1981) (standard for preliminary injunction and Rule 52 findings)
- Nnadi v. Richter, 976 F.2d 682 (11th Cir. 1992) (four traditional preliminary‑injunction equitable factors)
- Angel Flight of Ga., Inc. v. Angel Flight Am., Inc., 522 F.3d 1200 (11th Cir. 2008) (permanent injunction standards overlap with but differ from preliminary injunction standards)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (Supreme Court summary of permanent injunction principles)
- Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo S.A. v. All. Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999) (discussing merger of preliminary injunction into permanent injunction)
- United States v. Or. State Med. Soc., 343 U.S. 326 (1952) (caution against mooting relief by voluntary reforms)