Henri Beaulieu, Jr. v. Shelby County, AL

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: March 5, 2026
• Docket: 25-12625
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12625 Document: 41-2 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12625 ____________________

HENRI N. BEAULIEU, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

SHELBY COUNTY, ALABAMA, SHELBY COUNTY COMMISSIONER, KEVIN MORRIS, TOMMY EDWARDS, JON PARKER, et al., Defendants-Appellees, ROBERT SCOTT GRANT, et al., Defendants. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cv-01361-MHH ____________________

Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. BY THE COURT: USCA11 Case: 25-12625 Document: 41-2 Date Filed: 03/05/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Order of the Court 25-12625

Henri Beaulieu appeals from the district court’s July 18, 2025 order denying his motions for injunctive relief, which the court viewed as seeking a temporary restraining order (“TRO”). On ap- peal, a jurisdictional question asked the parties to address our juris- diction to review that order. Beaulieu responds that we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review the district court’s July 18 order because, in substance, that order denied or failed to address multiple requests seeking an injunction to stop ongoing irreparable harm. The ap- pellees respond that the July 18 order may be appealable under § 1292(a)(1) but contend that we should dismiss the appeal and re- mand for factual development. We construe the appellees’ re- sponses as motions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Upon review of Beaulieu’s motions that the district court de- nied in its July 18 order, we conclude that the order refused an in- junction and not merely a TRO. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1); AT&T Broadband v. Tech Commc’ns, Inc., 381 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2004). We thus have jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, we DENY the appellees’ construed motions to dismiss.