Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Schiavo v. Schiavo
Citations: 403 F.3d 1223; 2005 WL 648897Docket: 05-11556
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; March 22, 2005; Federal Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied a petition for expedited rehearing en banc regarding the case of Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo and her guardians. The appeal originates from the Middle District of Florida, with the Schindler family (parents and next friends) as plaintiffs against Michael Schiavo, the guardian, and other defendants. A majority of the active Circuit Judges did not support the rehearing request, leading to the denial under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Circuit Judge Tjoflat dissented, arguing for the application of the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. 1651(a)), which allows the court to issue necessary writs to maintain its jurisdiction. He emphasized that without an injunction, further proceedings would become moot, thus relinquishing jurisdiction. Tjoflat contended that the panel erred in denying emergency relief and that the All Writs Act should allow for an injunction to preserve jurisdiction, even when a preliminary injunction was sought. He clarified that while the All Writs Act should not be used to bypass the requirements for a preliminary injunction, it remains appropriate in cases where jurisdiction preservation is at stake. Tjoflat referenced the Florida Medical Association case, detailing a class action against the Department of Health regarding privacy violations related to Medicare data publication, arguing it does not preclude the issuance of an injunction under the All Writs Act in this context. The district court refrained from deciding on a preliminary injunction despite the parties submitting evidence, believing that publishing a list would moot the claims. Consequently, the court enjoined the list's publication while awaiting a decision on the preliminary injunction motion, invoking the All Writs Act. The appellate court reversed this decision, stating that while the All Writs Act allows for extraordinary remedies, it does not permit the court to create procedural rules circumventing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure due to inconvenience. The appellate court emphasized that Rule 65 adequately protects the district court's jurisdiction and instructed immediate attention to the preliminary injunction motion. The defendant agreed to delay publication pending the district court's ruling, expected within thirty days. The appellate court distinguished this case from Florida Medical Association, which illustrated a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo. It noted that unlike Florida Medical Association, where an injunction was granted to prevent irreparable harm, the current case lacked a decision on a preliminary injunction, and without it, the court would not hear a permanent injunction. The dissenting opinions expressed concern that the ruling misinterpreted Florida Medical Association and undermined the authority granted by the All Writs Act, advocating for a rehearing en banc to address these issues.