USCA11 Case: 21-13805 Date Filed: 07/11/2022 Page: 1 of 10 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-13805 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ HALIMA TARIFFA CULLEY, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALABAMA, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE 13TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (Mobile County), CITY OF SATSUMA, ALABAMA, Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 21-13805 Date Filed: 07/11/2022 Page: 2 of 10 2 Opinion of the Court 21-13805 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-00701-TFM-MU ____________________ ____________________ No. 21-13484 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ LENA SUTTON, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated as described below, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LEESBURG, ALABAMA, TOWN OF, Defendant-Appellee, STATE OF ALABAMA, USCA11 Case: 21-13805 Date Filed: 07/11/2022 Page: 3 of 10 21-13805 Opinion of the Court 3 Intervenor-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 4:20-cv-00091-ACA ____________________ Before WILSON, JORDAN, and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is consolidated from two cases, one brought by Ms. Halima Culley, and the other by Ms. Lena Sutton. Both Ap- pellants seek monetary damages for alleged violations of, and con- spiracy to violate, their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Ms. Culley also seeks injunctive relief. After careful review, we lack jurisdiction to consider the claims for injunctive relief because they are moot. And as to the remaining claims, the district courts correctly held that they are foreclosed by binding precedent. We thus affirm.1 1 The Appellees offer several additional reasons to affirm: claim preclusion, issue preclusion, and the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 44 (1971). Because these bases are not jurisdictional, and because the rul- ings below are due to be affirmed in any event, we need not reach these issues. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 282 (2005) (“Preclusion is not a jurisdictional matter.”); Walker v. City of Calhoun, 901 USCA11 Case: 21-13805 Date Filed: 07/11/2022 Page: 4 of 10 4 Opinion of the Court 21-13805 I We assume the parties are familiar with the factual and pro- cedural background of these consolidated cases, and thus recount only the facts necessary to resolve this appeal. We begin with the Culley Action. On February 17, 2019, Ms. Culley’s son was pulled over by police while driving a car reg- istered to his mother. Police arrested him and charged him with possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia in Satsuma, Ala- bama. The City of Satsuma also seized the vehicle incident to the arrest. Ms. Culley tried to retrieve the vehicle, but to no avail. On February 27, 2019, the State of Alabama filed a civil asset forfeiture action in state court. After 20 months, the state court granted Ms. Culley summary judgment, finding that she was entitled to the re- turn of her vehicle under Alabama’s innocent-owner defense. See Ala. Code § 20-2-93(h). Next, the Sutton Action. In …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals