Stovall v. City of Cocoa, Fla., 96-2891

• Decision Date: 24 July 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-2891,96-2891
• Citation: 117 F.3d 1238
• Parties: 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 220 Charles L. STOVALL, Martha Ray Bethel, W.O. Wells, Reverend, Joann Stovall, Sylvester Weaver, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF COCOA, FLORIDA, Cocoa City Council, Mike Hill, Mayor-Councilmember of the City of Cocoa, Ray Griffin, Alex Greenwood, John Lee Blubaugh, Dave Salisbury, Phyllis Churchill, Members of the Cocoa City Council, Beth Dabrowski, Clerk of the City of Cocoa, Rudolph V. Stone, Commissioner of the City of Cocoa, Defendants-Appellees, Joel Robinson, Mathew Ford, Susan Griffin, Beverly Cathechis, Amici Curiae.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1238

117 F.3d 1238

11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 220

Charles L. STOVALL, Martha Ray Bethel, W.O. Wells, Reverend Joann Stovall, Sylvester Weaver, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF COCOA, FLORIDA, Cocoa City Council, Mike Hill Mayor-Councilmember of the City of Cocoa, Ray Griffin, Alex Greenwood, John Lee Blubaugh, Dave Salisbury, Phyllis Churchill, Members of the Cocoa City Council, Beth Dabrowski, Clerk of the City of Cocoa, Rudolph V. Stone Commissioner of the City of Cocoa, Defendants-Appellees Joel Robinson, Mathew Ford, Susan Griffin, Beverly Cathechis, Amici Curiae.

No. 96-2891.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

July 24, 1997.

Christina M. Correia, ACLU Foundation, Inc., Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

J. Wesley Howze, Jr., Amari Theriac & Eisenmenger, P.A., Melbourne, FL, for Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before DUBINA, Circuit Judge, and HILL and GIBSON ^*, Senior Circuit Judges.

DUBINA, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs/appellants ("plaintiffs") appeal the district court's order granting defendants/appellees' (collectively, "the City") motion to withdraw a joint motion for approval of a consent decree and entry of judgment. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and remand.

I. BACKGROUND

This is the second time we have considered an appeal in this voting rights case. In 1993, plaintiffs, black residents of the City of Cocoa, Florida, filed their complaint alleging that the at-large method of electing city council members diluted minority voting strength in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973(b). Prior to trial, the parties agreed upon a settlement under which four of the five council members would be elected from single-member districts, while the fifth council member, who also serves as mayor, would continue to be elected at-large. Black voters would constitute a majority of one of the single-member districts. After the city council approved the plan by a 3-2 vote, the parties filed a joint motion in the district court to enter a consent decree. Four Cocoa City registered voters appeared as amici in opposition to the entry of the consent decree.

The district court denied the joint motion on the ground that one of the council members who had voted in favor of the plan should have abstained because he was a former plaintiff in the lawsuit and thus had a conflict of interest under Florida law. Plaintiffs appealed and a panel of our court reversed, finding no conflict of interest. See George v. City of Cocoa, Fla., 78 F.3d 494 (11th Cir.1996). Our court remanded the case "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." Id. at 499. Three days after the mandate issued, the City filed a motion in the district court to withdraw the joint motion to enter a consent decree. The City argued that the districting plan would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Over plaintiffs' objections and without explanation, the district court granted the motion by simply writing on the first page of the City's motion, "Granted. Case shall proceed to trial."

The plaintiffs then perfected this appeal. Additionally, they filed motions to enforce the mandate from the previous appeal and for a writ of mandamus. This court denied both motions.

II. ISSUES

(1) Whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

(2) Whether the district court erred in refusing to approve the consent decree.

III. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Subject matter jurisdiction is a legal issue which we consider de novo. Sims v. Trus Joist MacMillan, 22 F.3d 1059, 1060 (11th Cir.1994).

District courts should approve consent decrees so long as they are not unconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, or contrary to public policy. E.g., Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir.1977) ¹; see also Howard v. McLucas, 871 F.2d 1000, 1008 (11th Cir.1989) (district court should determine whether consent decree "represent[s] a reasonable factual and legal determination based on the record, and ensure that it [does] not violate federal law"). The parties disagree on the standard we should use in reviewing the district court's refusal to approve the consent decree. Plaintiffs claim the standard is de novo; the City argues it is abuse of discretion.

The law in our circuit is not crystal clear. District court decisions to approve, modify, or not modify consent decrees are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Jacksonville Branch, NAACP v. Duval County School Bd., 978 F.2d 1574, 1578 (11th Cir.1992). However, the former Fifth Circuit held that a district court's refusal to approve a consent decree is subject to plenary review. See U.S. v. City of Alexandria, 614 F.2d 1358, 1361-62 (5th Cir.1980). ² More recently, we stated that "the duty of an appellate court is simply to ascertain whether or not the trial judge clearly abused his discretion in approving or rejecting a settlement agreement." Brooks v. Georgia State Bd. of Elections, 59 F.3d 1114, 1119 (11th Cir.1995) (emphasis added). One way to reconcile these decisions is to tailor the standard of review to the district court's rationale for rejecting the proposed consent decree. A district court's conclusion that a proposed decree would be unlawful is a legal determination which should be subject to de novo review. See United Egg Producers v. Standard Brands, Inc., 44 F.3d 940 (11th Cir.1995) (reviewing de novo district court's refusal to approve settlement stipulation because it violated First Amendment). On the other hand, a conclusion that a proposed decree would be unreasonable or unfair is more appropriately reviewed for abuse of discretion. As the court noted in City of Alexandria, "the degree of appellate scrutiny must depend on a variety of factors, such as the familiarity of the trial court with the lawsuit, the stage of the proceeding at which the settlement is approved, and the types of issues involved." 614 F.2d at 1361.

In the present case, the district court did not specify the basis for its rejection of the proposed consent decree. Therefore, as explained infra, meaningful review would be difficult under either standard of review, given the state of the record.

IV. ANALYSIS

A. JURISDICTION

We raised sua sponte the issue of whether we have jurisdiction over this appeal. As a general matter, this court's jurisdiction is limited to the review of final orders of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. However, courts of appeals may review certain interlocutory decisions, including "orders of the district courts ... granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions ..." 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (emphasis added). Under § 1292(a)(1), interlocutory orders which have the practical effect of denying injunctive relief are immediately appealable if the appellant can show (1) that the order might have a "serious, perhaps irreparable consequence," and (2) that the order can be "effectively challenged" only by immediate appeal. In re Culton, 111 F.3d 92, 93 (11th Cir.1997), citing Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84, 101 S.Ct. 993, 996-97, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981).

Carson controls this case. In Carson, the Supreme Court held that a district court order refusing to enter a consent decree in a Title VII case was immediately appealable under § 1292(a)(1). First, the Court reasoned that the consent decree effectively constituted a permanent injunction because it prohibited future racial discrimination, altered seniority and benefits systems, and established hiring goals. Carson, 450 U.S. at 83-84, 101 S.Ct. at 996-97. Second, the Court held that without immediate appeal, (1) petitioners would lose the opportunity to settle their case on the negotiated terms, and (2) they would be delayed in obtaining the injunctive benefits of the settlement they negotiated. Id. at 89, 101 S.Ct. at 999. "These constitute 'serious, perhaps irreparable, consequences' that petitioners can 'effectually challenge' only by an immediate appeal." Id. at 90, 101 S.Ct. at 999; see also U.S. v. City of Alexandria, 614 F.2d at 1361 n. 5 ("an order refusing approval of a consent decree is necessarily one 'refusing' an injunction for purposes of § 1291(a), and is therefore appealable").

Here, as in Carson, the consent decree was, effectively, an injunction because it would have imposed a new method of electing city council members. The City argues that plaintiffs will not be irreparably harmed because the next City election is a year and a half away and "the alleged harm to the appellees cannot be remedied short of revoking this [sic] results of the most recent election and ordering new elections." Appellees' Br. at 7. However, the City ignores the other important harm identified by the Supreme Court in Carson: the loss of the "bargain" obtained through negotiation. Moreover, it is not clear that a trial in the district court would conclude in time to affect the next election. The City also argues that this appeal was not plaintiffs' only means of obtaining review of the district court's order because plaintiffs also sought, albeit unsuccessfully, a writ of mandamus from this court. However, as plaintiffs point out, § 1292(a)(1) requires not that interlocutory appeal be the only means of challenge, but that it be the only effective means of challenge. In our view, plaintiffs should not be penalized for pulling out all the stops.

Finally, it is worth noting that the first time this case was appealed, the same jurisdictional issue was presented. The panel decided the question in favor of plaintiffs, though without explanation. See George, 78 F.3d at 495 ("This case comes to us on appeal from the district court's order denying the parties' joint motion to approve a consent decree and enter judgment. We have jurisdiction ..."). In the present appeal, plaintiffs again appeal the district court's refusal to approve the consent decree and enter...