Christopher Adams v. Dave BakerChristopher Adams v. Dave Baker
LITIGANT
ON BRIEF AND MOTIONS: Christopher Adams, Pikeville, Tennessee, pro se.
OPINION
PER CURIAM. Tennessee inmate Christopher Adams filed a pro se lawsuit under
Our jurisdiction is limited to “cases and controversies.”
The point of a preliminary injunction is to maintain “the status quo” until the resolution of the case “on its merits.” Burniac v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 810 F.3d 429, 435 (6th Cir. 2010). A final decision on the merits thus “extinguishes a preliminary injunction.” Id. Because no “status quo” remains for us to “maintain,” there is nothing left for us to do. See Burgess v. Ryan, 996 F.2d 180, 184 (7th Cir. 1993). Even if we agreed with him on the merits of his interlocutory appeal, we cannot provide him “effectual relief” because any preliminary injunction would “dissolve” the moment we ruled in his favor. See U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1093 (9th Cir. 2010); Hankins v. Temple Univ., 829 F.2d 437, 438 n.1 (3d Cir. 1987); Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Postal Serv., 764 F.2d 858, 860 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.