1:20-cv-00066-WGY) CARYN DEVINS STRICKLAND v. United States of America

1
FILED: October 18, 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
___________________
No. 22-1963
(1:20-cv-00066-WGY)
___________________
CARYN DEVINS STRICKLAND
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED
STATES; BRIAN STACY MILLER, The Hon., in his official capacity as Chair of the
Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources; ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS; ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, The Hon., in her
official capacity as Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts;
SHERYL L. WALTER, in her individual capacity; JOHN DOE(S), c/o Office of the
General Counsel for the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT; JUDICIAL
COUNCIL OF THE FOURTH CIRCUIT; ROGER L. GREGORY, The Hon., in his
individual capacity and his official capacity a Chief Judge of the Fourth Circuit and as
Chair of the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit; JAMES N. ISHIDA, in his individual
capacity and his official capacity as Circuit Executive of the Fourth Circuit and as
Secretary of the Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit; JOHN G. BAKER, Federal
Public Defender, in his official capacity as Federal Public Defender of the Federal
Public Defender for the Western District of North Carolina; FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA; ANTHONY
MARTINEZ, in his individual capacity
Defendants – Appellees

-- 1 of 5 --

2
___________________
O R D E R
___________________
Plaintiff Caryn Devins Strickland has filed a notice of interlocutory appeal.
Defendants have moved to dismiss Strickland’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the
reasons that follow, we grant defendants’ motion and deny all other pending motions as
moot.
I
On July 27, 2022, Strickland filed a motion asking the district court to “enter a
preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to compensate her for her lost earnings while
this litigation is pending.” ECF No. 125 at 1. On August 3, 2022, the district court held a
status conference in the case and scheduled a hearing on Strickland’s preliminary
injunction motion for September 6, 2022. On August 11, 2022, the district court, acting
pursuant to a motion by defendants, rescheduled the hearing on Strickland’s preliminary
injunction motion to September 8, 2022.
On September 2, 2022, Strickland filed a pleading entitled “Notice of Waiver of
Preliminary Injunction Hearing.” ECF No. 140. In that pleading, Strickland “notifie[d]
th[e] [district] court that she w[ould] waive the preliminary injunction hearing . . .
scheduled for September 8, 2022.” Id. at 1. Strickland asserted that “the undisputed facts
of th[e] case strongly support[ed] her right to a preliminary injunction, and so an
evidentiary hearing [wa]s unnecessary.” Id.

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Notwithstanding Strickland’s notice of waiver, the district court proceeded with
the scheduled September 8, 2022 hearing on her motion for preliminary injunction. In a
minute order entered on its docket following the hearing, the district court noted that it
was “collaps[ing] the . . . Motion for Preliminary Injunction with trial on the merits in
accordance with Rule 65(a).”
The following day, September 9, 2022, Strickland filed a notice of interlocutory
appeal, therein asserting that she was appealing the district court’s “refusal to grant
and/or denial of her motion for preliminary injunction entered on September 8, 2022.”
ECF No. 143 at 1.
Defendants have since filed a motion to dismiss Strickland’s appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. Defendants assert in their motion that “the district court has not denied
Strickland’s motion for a preliminary injunction” or otherwise effectively “den[ied]
injunctive relief to which she might be entitled.” Mot. at 2.
II
This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and
certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen
v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545–46 (1949). It is undisputed that no
final order has been issued by the district court in this case. Thus, we lack jurisdiction
over this appeal under § 1291. That leaves only the possibility of jurisdiction pursuant to
§ 1292. As noted, Strickland alleges in her notice of appeal that she is appealing from the
district court’s denial of (or refusal to grant) her motion for preliminary injunction. To be
sure, § 1292(a)(1) affords us with jurisdiction over “interlocutory orders . . . refusing . . .

-- 3 of 5 --

4
injunctions.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). But a review of the district court record reveals
that the district court has not yet ruled on Strickland’s motion for preliminary injunction.
More specifically, the record indicates that the district court declined Strickland’s request
to rule on her preliminary injunction motion solely on the basis of affidavits, and instead
“desires a prompt evidentiary hearing” in order to resolve the motion for preliminary
injunction. ECF No. 150 at 1. To the extent that Strickland contends the district court’s
refusal to grant her motion for preliminary injunction solely on the basis of submitted
affidavits “in effect” constitutes a denial of her motion, we disagree. As the defendants
point out, the district court has stated that it was not prepared to issue such a ruling
without the benefit of a more fully developed evidentiary record, but that it is open to
further discussing the matter with the parties. Notably, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure do not require a district court to forego an evidentiary hearing before ruling on
the merits of a motion for preliminary injunction. Further, Rule 65(a)(2) expressly
authorizes a district court, as occurred here, to “advance the trial on the merits and
consolidate it with the hearing” on the motion for preliminary injunction. Fed. R. Civ. P.
65(a)(2). Nothing about this procedural choice amounts to an effective denial of
Strickland’s motion for preliminary injunction. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over this
appeal pursuant to § 1292.
III
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED.
All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.

-- 4 of 5 --

5
Entered at the direction of the panel: Judge Briscoe, Judge Gilman, and Judge
Melloy.
For the Court
/s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

-- 5 of 5 --