Lashawn Jones v. Ocean County Division of Child

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: February 19, 2020
• Docket: 19-1509
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

CLD-259 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 19-1509 ___________

LASHAWN JONES, Appellant

v.

OCEAN COUNTY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY; SUPERIOR COURT OF OCEAN COUNTY NEW JERSEY; HON. ROBERT E. BRENNAN, J.S.C.; JUDGE STEPHEN J. BERNSTEIN, Monmouth County ____________________________________

On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. Civil No. 3-18-cv-11528) District Judge: Honorable Michael A. Shipp ____________________________________

Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 August 15, 2019 Before: CHAGARES, RESTREPO, and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: February 19, 2020) __________

OPINION* __________ PER CURIAM

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. Lashawn Jones appeals from an order denying his motion for a preliminary

injunction. We will dismiss this appeal as moot.

Jones is a New Jersey state prisoner. He filed a federal complaint raising claims

regarding visitation with his son J.G. After a New Jersey state court issued an order

suspending those visits, Jones filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and apparently

sought an order directing the visits to resume. The District Court denied that motion, and

Jones filed this appeal.

Ordinarily, we would have jurisdiction to review the District Court’s denial of

Jones’s motion for a preliminary injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). After Jones

filed this appeal, however, the District Court entered an order dismissing his amended

complaint. The District Court dismissed most of Jones’s claims with prejudice, but it

dismissed some of his claims without prejudice and with leave to further amend. Jones

did not amend within the time permitted and instead filed a second appeal at C.A. No. 19-

2021. That appeal is not presently before us.

By filing that appeal instead of amending within the time permitted, however,

Jones rendered the District Court’s order of dismissal final by standing on his complaint.

See Hoffman v. Nordic Nats., Inc., 837 F.3d 272, 279 & n.49 (3d Cir. 2016). And the

District Court’s final order of dismissal renders moot this appeal from its order denying

Jones’s motion for a preliminary injunction. See Doe ex rel. Doe v. Governor of N.J.,

2 783 F.3d 150, 151 n.1 (3d Cir. 2015) (citing Hankins v. Temple Univ. (Health Sciences

Ctr.), 829 F.2d 437, 438 n.1 (3d Cir. 1987)).

Thus, we will dismiss this appeal as moot. See id. Jones’s motion for

appointment of counsel on appeal is denied. To the extent that Jones’s filings can be

construed to request any other forms of relief, those requests are denied as well.