United States v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3148

Background

In Aug. 2012 the United States sued Florida under RLUIPA, alleging Florida’s prison system failed to provide a certified kosher diet to prisoners with a sincere religious basis, imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.
After denial of Florida’s motion to dismiss, Florida adopted Procedure 503.006 (the Religious Diet Program) in Mar. 2013, which used prepackaged certified kosher entrees plus select items from normal food service and created eligibility rules.
Three challenged provisions: (1) a “sincerity” test for initial eligibility and (2–3) a “Zero Tolerance Rule” removing inmates who (a) obtain/consume items not listed as kosher by contractors or (b) barter kosher items.
The U.S. moved for a preliminary injunction requiring Florida to provide a certified kosher diet to sincerely observant prisoners and enjoining enforcement of the challenged eligibility provisions; the district court granted that injunction in Dec. 2013.
The PLRA (18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)) requires district courts to make particularized findings that prospective relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary, and is least intrusive, and to make the order final within 90 days or the preliminary injunction expires automatically.
The district court did not make the required PLRA findings or finalize the order within 90 days; the injunction therefore expired by operation of law on Mar. 6, 2014, while Florida’s interlocutory appeal was pending.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the PLRA’s 90‑day automatic expiration affected jurisdiction over Florida’s interlocutory appeal of the preliminary injunction	U.S.: district court’s injunction remains effective and should be reviewed on the merits	Florida: appeal should proceed despite PLRA timing; argued later clarifying orders preserved the injunction	The injunction expired by operation of law because the court did not make the PLRA findings or finalize the order within 90 days; appeal is moot
Whether particularized findings are required under § 3626(a)(1) for preliminary injunctions	U.S.: (implicit) district court satisfied requirements by granting relief	Florida: (implicit) district court’s order sufficient without detailed findings	Court: § 3626(a)(1) requires particularized findings applying the need-narrowness-intrusiveness criteria to each requirement, analogous to § 3626(b)(3) and Cason
Whether the appeal is saved by the ‘‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’’ exception	U.S.: issues may recur and thus exception should apply	Florida: no reasonable expectation future injunctions will evade review because omission was an oversight unlikely to repeat	Held: exception does not apply—no demonstrated probability that a new preliminary injunction would evade review; issues capable of repetition but not likely to evade review
Remedy for a moot appeal of an expired injunction	N/A	Florida argued clarifying orders renewed the injunction	Court: dismiss appeal as moot and vacate the district court’s orders entering and clarifying the expired preliminary injunction

Key Cases Cited

Pac. Ins. Co. v. Gen. Dev. Corp., 28 F.3d 1093 (11th Cir.) (mootness obligation to consider sua sponte)
Brooks v. Ga. State Bd. of Elections, 59 F.3d 1114 (11th Cir.) (appeal of expired preliminary injunction is moot)
Local No. 8-6, Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int’l Union v. Missouri, 361 U.S. 363 (1960) (expired injunctions moot appeals)
Calderon v. Moore, 518 U.S. 149 (1996) (defining mootness where no effectual relief is possible)
DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974) (mootness doctrine: no effectual relief, dismissal)
Sierra Club v. Martin, 110 F.3d 1551 (11th Cir.) (capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review framework)
Cason v. Seckinger, 231 F.3d 777 (11th Cir.) (requirement for particularized findings under § 3626(b)(3))
Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930 (9th Cir.) (§ 3626(a)(2) automatic expiration applies when court fails to make required findings)
De La Teja v. United States, 321 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir.) (vacatur of district court orders when appeal becomes moot)
In re Ghandtchi, 705 F.2d 1315 (11th Cir.) (vacatur and remand when case becomes moot on appeal)