Rebecca Mitson, et al. v. Secretary, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, et al.

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No.12-13352
Non-Argument Calendar
_____________
D. C. Docket No. 9:87-cv-12020-DMM
REBECCA MITSON,
MARILYN JONES,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
ELIZABETH RUBINO, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
versus
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
REHABILITATIVE SERVICES,
SHEFFIELD V. KENYON,
SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES,
Defendants-Third Party
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Third Party Defendant.
Case: 12-13352 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2
______________
Appeal from the United States District Court
For Southern the District of Florida
______________
(December 26, 2012)
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARTIN and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
As stated in Appellant, Irene Czajkowski’s (“Czajkowski”), appellate brief,
the issue presented in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion
in denying Czajkowski’s Motion to Reopen the Case of Mitson By and Through
Jones v. Coler, 674 F. Supp. 851 (S.D. Fla. 1987), in which the district court
prohibited the State of Florida from counting as “income” unreimbursed medical
expenses awarded under the Veterans Administration Improved Pension Benefits
Program.
In her suit, Czajkowski seeks to be appointed as a new class representative,
and she seeks the district court’s assistance in enforcing the permanent injunction
issued in Mitson.
We review the denial of a motion to reopen a case for an abuse of discretion.
See Jiang v. U. S. Att’y Gen., 568 F.3d 1252, 1256 (11th Cir. 2009) (immigration
Case: 12-13352 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

3
context). A district court “abuses its discretion when its equitable decision is based
on an error of law or a clearly erroneous factual finding.” Labor/Community
Strategy v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth., 564 F.3d 1115, 1119-20 (9th
Cir. 2009); Kenney v. United States, 458 F.3d 1025, 1032 (9th Cir. 2006).
After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that
there is no abuse of discretion by the district court in failing to reopen the case and
in denying Czajkowski’s right to intervene and enforce the permanent injunction.
As the district court correctly held, “even if Czajkowski could be appointed class
representative, she failed to establish that defendants are not in compliance with a
permanent injunction issued in Mitson.” [R. Vol. 4 Doc. 194 at 2.] Moreover, the
district court correctly found that Czajkowski’s grievances with the Department of
Children and Families fell squarely outside the scope of the permanent injunction
issued in Mitson. Because the 1987 order in Mitson did not address the subject of
her claim, her motion to legally reopen and for a show cause order is legally
insufficient. Additionally, we conclude from the record that the district court
properly denied Czajkowski’s motion to intervene as a representative class plaintiff
because the interest she wanted to assert fell outside the scope of the 1987 order in
Mitson.
Case: 12-13352 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4
Accordingly, because we find no merit to any of the arguments Czajkowski
makes in this appeal, we affirm the district court’s orders denying Czajkowski’s
motion to reopen the case and denying Czajkowski’s motion to alter or amend the
district court’s order denying the motion to reopen the case.
AFFIRMED.
Case: 12-13352 Date Filed: 12/26/2012 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --