Benzo Elias Rudnikas v. Florida, et al.

Whether the Eleventh’s Circuit’s application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine was unjustified and unconstitutional? Whether the Eleventh Circuit’s application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine de­ parted from this Court’s precedent in Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820 (1996) and Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U.S. 409 (1897)? Whether the Eleventh Circuit abused its discretion in not issuing a written opinion when is­ suing the severe sanction of fugitive disentitlement in a civil case?

In Tex. Dept, of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981), this Court held that a Defend­ ant’s failure to rebut the prima facie case of discrimi­ nation entitles the Plaintiff to judgment as a matter of law. In the instant case, the State Respondents ad­ mitted on appeal that they did not rebut Plaintiffs prima facie case of ADA retaliation. Nonetheless, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed his appeal under the fugi­ tive disentitlement doctrine. The question presented is: Whether Petitioner’s entitlement to injunction un­ der 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)-(c), as established by the ad­ mission to liability by the State Respondents in their answer brief, outweighs the policy objectives of the fu­ gitive disentitlement doctrine? Whether the doctrine of vindictive prosecution outweighs the application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine in a civil case?

Like the statute at issue in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, 599 U.S. 736 (2023), Section 1447(d) of Title 28 creates a rare statutory exception to the usual rule that parties may not appeal before final judgment. Section 1447(d) permits the immediate appeal of a remand order in a case removed under the federal of­ ficer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a) and civil rights statute 28 U.S.C.§ 1443. The question pre­ sented is: Whether a remand order appealed under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d), like the orders at issue in Coinbase, is subject to an automatic stay pending appeal. If so, whether the Writ of Bodily Attachment issued by the State Respondents in the related case, that the Elev­ enth Circuit used as the basis for its application of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine in the instant case, is void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction?