Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Jean Dominique Morancy, Individually and on Behalf His Minor Child, L. M., Petitioner v. Sabrina Alex Salomon, et al.

No. 25-

In the

Supreme Court of the United States

> O>~<Gas

Jean Dominique Morancy and L.M., a minor, by and

through her father, Jean Dominique Morancy,

Petitioners,

V.

John Joseph Albert, Gerald Francis Znosko et al,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Jean Dominique Morancy, Pro se

13096 SW 53rd St.,

Miramar, Florida, 33027

(786) 523-3179

ubmojedo@yahoo.com

I. Questions Presented

1. Whether Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008)

requirement that courts consider the underlying

merits—not merely jurisdictional questions—before

abstaining applies to civil rights injunctions under

Younger, and whether the lower courts' failure to

conduct any substantive merits inquiry violated this

precedent.

2. Whether a federal court of appeals, reviewing a

district court’s application of the Younger v. Harris,

401 U.S. 37 (1971), abstention doctrine, may in the

first instance make its own factual findings on the

Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State

Bar Assn, 457 U.S. 423 (1982), factors—rather than

remanding for the district court to resolve disputed

facts—consistent with the requirements of due

process, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), and

this Court’s precedents limiting appellate fact-finding.

3. Whether the interplay between Younger abstention

and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 16

requires that abstention be analyzed prior to courtapproved amendments, such that subsequent

refinements to a complaint do not trigger renewed

abstention review, thereby preventing procedural

confusion and ensuring consistent enforcement of civil

rights claims nationwide.

4, Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in affirming

denial of a preliminary injunction through application

of a rigid, sequential “likelihood of success”

standard—contrary to other circuits’ flexible/slidingscale approaches—thus deepening a circuit split in the

wake of Winter v. NRDC, impeding fair and equitable

relief in public law controversies.

II. Parties to the Proceeding

Having framed the legal issues, we next identify all

the respondents in the federal proceedings.

Albert & Donnelly LLC; John Joseph Albert; Anna

Arceneaux; Elaine Agnes Barbour; John David William

Beamer; Jay P. Cohen; Michael T. Donnelly I; Florida

Department Of Revenue — Child Support Program;

Florida Sixth District Court Of Appeal; Florida Ninth

Judicial Circuit Court; Angela Lynn Lambiase; Irena

Monico; Judy Nicholson; Ashley Moody; David

Muguercia; Otero Family Law P.A.; Carles A. Otero;

Wanda Marie Reas; Revival Private Investigators

Corporation; Sabrina Alex Salomon; Charles Schreiber;

Nicholas Ari Shannin; Shannin Law Firm, P.A.; Carol

Bradshaw Shannin; Tiffany Moore Russell; Daniel

Traver; Keith Franklin White; Carrie Ann Wozniak;

Znosko & Reas, P.A.; and Gerald Francis Znosko.

Respondents.

Iii. RULE 29.6 STATEMENT

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 29.6, Petitioners are

natural persons and have no parent, subsidiary, or

publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of their

stock.

IV.

STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS

The following is a list of all proceedings in other courts

that are related to the case in this Court:

Morancy v. Salomon, No. 23-12248 (Feb. 8, 2024)

reversed the dismissal ruling in case (6:23-cv-714).

Morancy v. Salomon, 24-12505 (11th Cir. 2025)

Certiorari pending.

Morancy v. Salomon, 6:23-cv-714-CEM-RMN, U.S

District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Morancy v. Salomon, No. SC2022-1531 (Nov. 15, 2022)

Morancy v. Salomon, No. SC2022-1602 (Nov. 23, 2022)

Morancy v. Salomon, No. SC2023-0603 (May 2, 2023)

Morancy v. Salomon, No. SC2023-0496 (May 18, 2023)

Morancy v. Salomon, No. SC2023-0941 (Jun. 30, 2023)

5

e Morancy v. Znosko et al (CACE23021874)

© Morancy v. Znosko, 399 So.3d 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov.

14, 2024)

e Morancy v. Department of Revenue Circuit 17,

Broward Unit DOR, (4D2025-0239)

e Morancy v. Salomon, No. 6D2023-2155 (March 22,

2023)

e Morancy v. Salomon, No. 6-D2023-2541 (May 11, 2023)

e Morancy v. Salomon, No. 6D2023-1645(June 15, 2023)

e Morancy v. Salomon, 375 So. 8d 288 (Fla. 6th DCA

Oct. 31, 2023) Certiorari denied Morancy v. Salomon,

S. Ct. No. 23-963 (April 15, 2024)

e J.D. M.v. S.A. S, No. 6.D2025-1500 (June 25, 2025)

e Morancy v. Salomon, No. 6D2023-3456

With the procedural history before this Court set

forth, the following contents outline the petition’s

structure.

Vv. TABLE OF CONTENTS WITH APPENDIX

I. Questions Presented ..............-cccsscstecce teeter 2

II. Parties to the Proceeding..............::ceeeenenrertiren 4

II]. RULE 29.6 STATEMENT. ...........-:cssessesssssssrsesenaeeneeenees 5

IV. STATEMENT OF RELATED PROCEEDINGS......5

V. TABLE OF CONTENTS WITH APPENDIX............ 7

VI. TABLE OF CITATIONG..........ccccccececeseereneeeenees 10

VII. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI............. 13

Vit OPINIONS BELOW ..u.0....:ccccsssscessesssseceeeeseseecentseatenens 13

TX. JURISDICTION. ........:.:cccccsccssssecsssenseneesseesresssacensenceseens 13

Xx. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED........-.:::cssssssessensnetsenrerennrennenennsentens 14

KT. - STATEMENT. .........ssccsecssecseceeseessessecenesateneescereneeneanscneaazens 17

A. Relevant Supreme Court Precedents.................... 18

B. The Circuit Split on Preliminary Injunction

Standards Post-Winter............---scssssscseseeseerentseensensenneeneasenss 19

1. Rigid Sequential Approach (Fourth, Fifth,

Ninth (in part), Tenth, Eleventh): ........:c:ccceceeeseseeneeeees 20

2. Flexible Sliding-Scale Approach (Second,

Seventh, Nimth)s........ccsccscseessesessseeseseersncensessantanestennceanenees 21

8. Mixed Threshold-Balancing Approach Circuits

(D.C. )z sesssccsssssseescsssnsescseceseusssesonssneseesennasecncansnsccecgnanasecqqngnsnnnssse 22

C. Factual and Procedural Background..........-.000 22

D. PROCEDURAL HISTORY.........-:-cc:eeneseeneeteee 25

1. Initial Federal Proceedings and Remand ........ 25

2. Amendment and Motion for Preliminary

Emgunnction........secccsssvsceccccssesssnseessnseeeennneecernnsnnnnuasaqnnnnnnnssssges 26

3. District Court Denial and Related Motions ... 27

4. Eleventh Circuit Affirmance and Violations of

Precedent eveosorencssscsoirssitssienisssssisisivtisiviitideammenesacenseeacses 30

XII. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT.......0000..... 33

1. Supervisory Intervention to restore adherence

to established legal standard. .........ccccccccccccsssesssosss.... 34

a) Younger Exceptions Require Merits

Comside ration .....0...........ccccsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssessesecee.., 38

b) The District Court Failed to Make the

Necessary Fact-Findings Under Middlesex............. 40

c) The Panel Exceeded Its Appellate Function by

Making Factual Findings Absent from the District

Court's Record oa... eccecesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssassosanessesesseses 47

c) Violation of Due Process and Evidentiary

Hearing Requirement ..0.00.0..0.cccccscsccsscscssccseseeoeeccccce. 54

2. National Importance ...0..0...0.0..:sssssssssssssssssssssssseeosccce... 61

3. The Eleventh Circuit Decision Deepens an

Entrenched and Mature Circuit Split Regarding

Preliminary Injunction Standards Post-Winter ........ 65

4. The Split Is Mature, Entrenched, and Requires

Resolution .........ccccssssssessssssseesesssssssssuussssssitesssssssssssessessssscc. 67

5. This Case Demonstrates the Real-World Impact

Of the Split... ccssscsssssssssssssssssssesueseseesessrsssssesssssssuuseessssssss 67

6. The Decision Creates Critical Confusion

Regarding the Interplay Between Younger

Abstention and Federal Rules 15 and ee 68

a) Abstention Analysis Must Precede, Not Follow,

Approved Amendment .....0......cccccscssssscsssssssssesecccccccces..,, 72

7. The Decision Undermines Federal Civil Rights

Enforcement in Cases of Alleged State Judicial

Corruption .....e.ccsscscccsssssesssssssssessssssssssssssssssssssustissasesseseeseccecc 74

1. Congressional Purpose in § 1983 & RICO........ 74

a) Section 1983: Federal Protection Against State

ADUSE ooeccccccccceccscccscceccsssccssseccesseecsetecescccsassssseceeneusnseeeeaseneceeenags 75

b) RICO: Federal Authority Over Systematic

Corruption 0.0... cccscsscesescesessensseceenensenerteesnseseneensseenecsseaeasents 76

2. The Decision Destroys the Constitutional

Balance Between Federal and State Authority......77

XII. CONCLUSION ........:sccccsesesssesssessssseeesneseesesenterenseonenens 81

Appendix A — Eleventh Circuit Opinion (May 8, 2025)

OO TT OTe TTC ie la

Appendix B — Court of appeals denial of rehearing (Jun.

D3, LOZB) .....scccsseescerccorerssseesesnesssensensoanes 15a

Appendix C — District court opinion and order (Sept. 29,

DQOQQD) ....csceccssscccsecececssecsssesecenneeseesereeees 17a

Appendix D — State Court Scheduling final hearing

without adequate notice .........+..2+e00 25a

Appendix E — Petitioner emailed the notice of appeal to

state defendants on August 2, 2024 at

12:08 PM ......ccccesceeeseeescee eee reeseeeeses 30a

Appendix F — State Court of Appeal Relinquishment

email and order on August 2, 2024 at

12:48 pM ........cscsceseecersceeereceeeeeeesens 32a

VI. TABLE OF CITATIONS

Cases

Aeina Life Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813 (1986) -.cccseccsessseee. 45

Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 424 F.3d 1117

(Lith Cir, 2005)... ccccscesecssesessesssessecsssscsssecoctscorsseeasesvasseseeses 31

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th

Cir, 2011) cecceccccsscscsssssccsssssssssssnsssseccessssssszsssssssassessesessssssssaseeeses 21

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992) ......ccccsesscses 18, 37

Baker v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 856 F.2d 167 (11th Cir.

1988).....csesscccsssessccssssscsssssssecssssseccssneesersusesssssvscsssssusssssueecessusesees 32, 57

Bloedorn v. Grube, 631 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2011)... 21

Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005)......... 42

Bortz v. Bortz, 675 So. 2d 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ........c.0 42

Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009)......... 56

Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991)...eccsscsssssesssessose 56

Citigroup Global V. Veg Special Opport, 598 F.3d 30 (Mar 10,

ZOLO).....ecsecccsssestssscssscsesscsesssasusssasecseessssssesessesersssessssususssssesscsceseseens 21

Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States,

424 U.S. 800 (1976).......ccccccsccscscsssssesssssssecsesssssssscssscsssceseseceeceeees 40

DeMarco v. United States, 415 U.S. 449 (1974) ....cccssesssssseseess 50

Dennison Mfg. Co. v. Panduit Corp., 475 U.S. 809 (1986)..... 53

Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287 (4th Cir.

QOLL)..ceeccsssssscssssseessssssssscssssscersussessssssssssssesessisssssssasesessueccsssesecsssseee 20

Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our Env't v. Jewell, 839 F.3D

1276 (10th Cir. 2016)...........ccscscsssssssssssscssesccsssacssssssessssseceseseee 21

DISH Network Corp. v. FCC, 636 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir. 201 }) 20

DISH Network Corp. v. FCC, 653 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 201 1)..20

Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) ...ccccsessecsecsssescccessscssceceneese 58

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962)..ceccccssssssecsesssessessseosesene 16,71

Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) .....ccssssssssssssscssecosesosseseees 57

Hanna v. Toner, 450 U.S. 919 (1981) vecscccccsscssecsesecsesssesececsveesees 62

Hanna vy. Toner, 630 F.2d 442 (6th Cir. 1980)....cccccccsscssecssseseee 62

Hill v. Snyder, 878 F.3d 193 (6th Cir. 2017)... 18, 31, 70

Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) ....ccccccssescsecsesssessseceeeosee 57

Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Coop., Inc. v. John Hancock Life

Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 721 (7th Cir, 2009).....ccccscscscesssessssccsesssesees 21

10

Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592 (1975) ...0... eee eeeeeee 39

Hutto v. Davis, 454 U.S. 3870 (1982).......ccsccessscessssccescreeseeesecees 61

McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir.

1998) scscssieiissvescsransosascssansvennicveiundsdsavescasshsnassdussietieseuisteronascwasnvevssone 32

McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668 (1968) ............ 63

Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass'n, 457

U.S. 423 (1982) sassssnsssscsscsnsesssssncacnsniscaciscasessonetscancsessa 27,41

Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972) wceeessessssssssseceeeans 62,75

Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961) wc cecessecsceseeseeeeresereeteens 63

Morancy v. Salomon, 375 So. 3d 288 (Fla. 6th DCA Oct. 31,

2OQB).ccresecsvveseccvveeseessvsecessuesessssusecessssessersssersnuesssnecsesssnscensssveess 24,55

Morancy v. Salomon, No. 24-12505 (11th Cir. May 8, 2025). 13

Morancy v. Salomon, No. 6D2023-3456 ...........ccsscseseeceseseeseenseseeeeeees 24

Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008)... 16, 17, 18, 35, 39

National Institutes of Health v. American Public Ifealth

Association, G06 U.S. (2025) .....ccsssssssecssesseeesseeseessseneneanenes 60

Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273 (1982).......cssese 49

Real Truth About Obama V. Fed. Elec. Commission, 559 U.S.

CUS OA) 0) ee 20

Real Truth About Obama, V. Fed. Elec. Commission, 575 F.3d

B42 (4th Cir. 2009) essssvsnecsssuesscessecesesscctsisnocascocnsoisdsssssucastestsacasaess 20

Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985)... 76

Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d 388 (D.C. Cir. 201)).................- 22

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) .........:cscseseee 48

Tokyo Gwinnett, LLC v. Gwinnett County, 940 F.3d 1254

(11th Cir. 2019)........ccccscccssssesrsssseesssecsecessscecsesssesssnseesessenacsenseaees 31

Tokyo Valentino, Inc. v. City of Aventura, 940 F.3d 1267 (11th

Chir, 2019) ceecccsccccssccsssssscssssccssssscsssesesssssssseneesserenserssnssnussssssseeseenseees 73

Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (1968)........:cscssscsssessesereseenss 55

Walgreen Co. v. Hood, 275 F.3d 475 (5th Cir. 2001) ............... 20

Williams v. Pennsylvania, 136 S. Ct. 1899 (2016)............. 44, 46

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7

(2008) ccccscvessssecceceeccesessescecsssscseccesesecesesesessusessscerssssssavensenseses 16, 17, 35

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)...cssscseees 16, 18, 35, 37, 39

Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241 (1967) ..ccccceccsssccsceseseseesseeeeee 63

11

Lith Cir. R. 40(b)(2).........+.0- cciisaaicscaraniineccicestcsteaisasiinsicaeuswasiccausaiwis 52

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)ssssssssssccssescssssscesssesercsseeserses 15, 66, 68, 71, 72, 81

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(C) cccsssessssssssscsseescessesecsessesesenses 15, 66, 68, 71, 72, 81

Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)....ccssccsssscsssettescsceeseseeses 15, 47, 48, 51, 53, 54, 81

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)..cssssssscsssccsssssscssscsscsssssesecsseeseceeneeens 16,57, 58, 59

Sup. Ct. R. 10(a) .o...ceeeceeccceseessseeeseeeccsssessesssessecsesseeecteeneeceessenses 34, 47

Sup. Ct. R. lOc) cisssscisseassissneassengasinecivessvanssncssvpontessavcccesstansoadseccacubens 34

Sup. Ct. BR. 13.3.......ccsssssccssssesaesn es deiegipisedsisbabadstssessteessuesiaatisesustiesass 14

Constitutional Provisions

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 o....eececcesesesceseeeeneeneeceneeeneneenees 14, 24

ULS. Const. art. TD iii ce ccccsscssssssscssssssecssesssesssseessnssssssesesees 14, 34

U.S. Code

18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 ....cccceescsscssssesesseesseeeeseee 15, 22, 25, 37, 74, 78

2B U.S.C. § L2EACL) cesccssccsccsesccsssssssssscsevessseusssssssseseveeeeeseeseeeeceeneees 13

28 W-Su@-§ 1/9)3:1 ,sttaaettaiSionasasee iv caneise=tiimitienEON.iaianscaaanaenaan 15

AZ U.S.C. § 1988 uc cecesceccsersrsessesecseceresereaeees 15, 22, 25, 37, 62, 74, 78

Journal Articles

Amy Coney Barrett, Stare Decisis and Due Process, 74 U.

Colo. L. Rev. 1011, 1061 (2008).........ccccseeesseseeseeesenceeeeseenenee 51

Kevin J. Lynch, Preliminary Injunctions in Public Law: The

Merits, 60 Hous. L. Rev. 1067 (2028) .....ccccescescsssstectsssesectsees 21

12

VII. PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

To the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the

Supreme Court of the United States:

Petitioner, Jean Dominique Morancy, and L.M.

through her father, respectfully petition for a writ of

certiorari to review the judgment of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Case No. 24-

12505, entered on May 8, 2025.

VIII. OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for

the Eleventh Circuit in Morancy v. Salomon, No. 24-

12505 (11th Cir. May 8, 2025), is unpublished and is

reproduced in the appendix hereto at pages la—l4a. The

order of the United States District Court denying the

preliminary injunction is unreported and is reproduced in

the appendix at pages 17a—24a.

IX. JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28

U.S.C. § 1254(1) to review the judgment of the United

13

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The

court of appeals entered its opinion on May 8, 2025 (App.,

infra, 1a-14a), and denied Petitioners’ timely petition for

rehearing on June 23, 2025 (App., infra, 15a-16a). This

petition for a writ of certiorari is timely filed within

ninety (90) days of the denial of rehearing, pursuant to

Supreme Court Rule 13.3.

X. CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14.1(f), the

following constitutional provisions, statutes, federal

rules, and judicial precedents are involved in this case.

Pertinent text is set forth verbatim where applicable;

Constitutional Provisions

- U.S. Const. art. ITI

- U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1 (Due Process Clause): "...

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or

property, without due process of law ...."

14

Statutory Provisions

- 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal-Question Jurisdiction)

- 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (civil action for deprivation of rights)

- 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (Racketeer Influenced and

Corrupt Organizations Act) (These sections define

racketeering activity, prohibited activities, and civil

remedies.)

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

— Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a) (amendments of right).

—~ Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(c) (‘amending the pleadings if

necessary or desirable”).

— Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a) (Findings and Conclusions by the

Court): "(1) In General. In an action tried on the facts

without a jury or with an advisory jury, the court must

find the facts specially and state its conclusions of law

separately. The findings and conclusions may be

stated on the record after the close of the evidence or

may appear in an opinion or a memorandum of

decision filed by the court ...."

15

— Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) (preliminary injunctions).

Relevant Judicial Precedents

- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971)

- Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555

U.S. 7 (2008): Established a four-factor test for granting

preliminary injunctions, requiring plaintiffs to show

likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm,

balance of equities in their favor, and that the injunction

is in the public interest.

- Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674 (2008): (A difficult

question as to jurisdiction is, of course, no reason to grant

a preliminary injunction. It says nothing about the

"likelihood of success on the merits," other than making

such success more unlikely due to potential impediments

to even reaching the merits.)

- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (Dec 3, 1962) (“If the

underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a

16

plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be

afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits.”)

The following narrative lays out the controlling

Supreme Court precedents and the facts underlying this

case.

XI. STATEMENT

This case presents a critical opportunity for the Court

to resolve an entrenched circuit split regarding the

standards for preliminary injunctions post-Winter v.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7

(2008), and to clarify the interplay between Younger

abstention and merits review under Munaf v. Geren, 553

U.S. 674 (2008).

The district court denied Petitioners’ motion for a

preliminary injunction by applying Younger abstention

without addressing the underlying merits, and the

Eleventh Circuit affirmed, exacerbating inconsistencies

in federal equitable relief standards.

17

A. Relevant Supreme Court Precedents

Younger abstention is a prudential doctrine applied at

the outset of federal proceedings to avoid interfering with

ongoing state actions. See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,

43—44 (1971). Once invoked, it is not reconsidered with

every complaint amendment. See Hill v. Snyder, 878 F.3d

198, 205-07 (6th Cir. 2017). Importantly, Younger does

not apply to tort suits, such as civil RICO claims. See

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 707 (1992).

In Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. at 693 this Court

emphasized that courts must evaluate the underlying

merits before abstaining or denying injunctive relief,

rather than relying solely on jurisdictional grounds.

Because Younger abstention is non-jurisdictional, it

requires district courts to assess injunction merits prior

to denial. This did not occur here. The Eleventh Circuit's

opinion exemplifies the error:

“(The District Court] properly applied our test

for when a preliminary injunction is

appropriate and determined that Morancy

18

failed to meet the first prong—a substantial

likelihood of success on the merits—because it

was barred from considering his claims under

Younger (App., infra, 11a) .... [W]e need not

consider the other prongs of the preliminary

injunction inquiry. “(App., infra, 14a)

This reasoning creates a circular loop: concern for

abstention precludes merits: review, and lack of merits

consideration justifies abstention—a direct violation of

Munaf's mandate. Equally eye-catching, the Eleventh

Circuit truncated the preliminary injunction test at the

"likelihood of success" prong when Younger is invoked,

bypassing this Court's full four-factor analysis in Winter

(requiring likelihood of success, irreparable harm,

balance of equities, and public interest) and merits

consideration under Munaf. This approach has divided

the circuits post-Winter.

B. The Circuit Split on Preliminary Injunction

Standards Post-Winter

Since Winter, the courts of appeals have diverged into

three main approaches to preliminary injunction

standards, creating inconsistency in federal equitable

19

relief and undermining uniform application of federal

procedure. This mature split warrant certiorari to restore

clarity.

1. Rigid Sequential Approach (Fourth, Fifth,

Ninth (in part), Tenth, Eleventh):

These circuits mandate independent proof of all four

Winter factors, with no sliding-scale or balancing

permitted. Emphasis is placed on a strict "likelihood of

success” showing. See e.g., Real Truth About Obama, V.

Fed. Elec. Commission, 575 F.3d 342, 347 (4th Cir. 2009)

vacated on other grounds, 559 U.S. 1089 (2010);

Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 649 F.3d 287, 290

(4th Cir. 2011); Walgreen Co. v. Hood, 275 F.3d 475, 477

(5th Cir. 2001) (requiring movant to show "substantial"

likelihood of prevailing on merits and "substantial" threat

of irreparable injury in the absence of a preliminary

injunction); DISH Network Corp. v. FCC, 653 F.3d 771,

774 (9th Cir. 2011) amending and superseding, on denial

of reh'g en banc, DISH Network Corp. v. FCC, 636 F.3d

1139 (9th Cir. 2011); Diné Citizens Against Ruining Our

20

Env't v. Jewell, 839 F.3D 1276, 1285-86 (10th Cir. 2016);

Bloedorn v. Grube, 631 F.3d 1218, 1229 (11th Cir. 2011).

As scholar Kevin J. Lynch observed, this rigidity

“hamstrung the ability of lower courts to reach equitable

and just results." Kevin J. Lynch, Preliminary

Injunctions in Public Law: The Merits, 60 Hous. L. Rev.

1067, 1107 (2023).

2. Flexible Sliding-Scale Approach (Second,

Seventh, Ninth):

These circuits allow injunctions based on "serious

questions going to the merits" if combined with a strong

balance of hardships, preserving equity's flexibility. See,

e.g., Citigroup Global v. Veg Special Opport, 598 F.3d 30

(Mar 10, 2010) (permitting relief where certainty of

success is lacking but costs of denial outweigh benefits).

Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Coop., Inc. v. John Hancock

Life Ins. Co., 582 F.3d 721, 725 (7th Cir. 2009); Alliance

for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (th Cir.

2011). Note the Ninth Circuit's intra-circuit tension, as

DISH Network (rigid) conflicts with Cottrell (flexible).

21

3. Mixed Threshold-Balancing Approach

Circuits (D.C.):

This circuit requires a threshold showing on likelihood

of success and irreparable harm before limited balancing

of the remaining factors, creating a hybrid approach that

attempts to reconcile Winter's requirements with

equitable flexibility. See Sherley v. Sebelius, 644 F.3d

388, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (applying a "sliding scale" but

mandating that no factor falls below a minimum

threshold, effectively blending rigidity with flexibility to

ensure equitable discretion while adhering to Winter's

emphasis on merits).

C. Factual and Procedural Background

This case arises from Petitioners' federal lawsuit

alleging tort claims, civil RICO violations (18 U.S.C. §§

1961-1968), and civil rights deprivations (42 U.S.C. §

1983) arising from systemic misconduct in an ongoing

Florida state paternity proceeding. Critically, all state

court orders are nullities due to improper substitution of

22

counsel at the outset and subsequent participation of that

counsel in all proceedings.

Mr. Gerald Francis Znosko, counsel for defendant

Sabrina Alex Salomon, filed pleadings in the paternity

court without leave and attended hearing while

defendant was already represented by previous counsel.

Petitioner, Jean Dominique Morancy, alleges a

comprehensive conspiracy involving multiple state court

actors, attorneys, and private parties engaged in:

e Fabrication of evidence and submission of

forged documents to state court.

e Judicial bias, ex parte communications, and

systematic denial of due process.

e Threats to Petitioners' safety, including

attempted murder.

e Racketeering enterprise designed to defraud

and manipulate state court proceedings.

23

Obstruction of justice and witness intimidation.

Fundamental procedural error: The state

court entered an amended final order on

September 14, 2023, amid the pendency of two

interlocutory appeals (e.g., Morancy v. Salomon,

375 So. 3d 288 (Fla. 6th DCA Oct. 31, 2023) and a

final appeal of the initial final order (6D23-3456).

Grand theft of Plaintiff's income through void

final state court order.

Legal malpractice and attorney conspiracy.

Fourteenth Amendment violations (U.S.

Const. amend. XIV, § 1) through denial of due

process by scheduling final hearing without

Petitioner's input or consent (App., infra, 25a-29a).

Fearing imminent irreparable harm—including

threats to his liberty, ongoing constitutional violations,

and personal safety—Petitioners filed this federal

complaint asserting RICO, § 1983, and related claims on

24

April 10, 2023. As of this date, a minimum of four

defendants, including the attempted murderer and

Plaintiff's former counsel, are in default.

Turning from background to chronology, the

procedural posture in both courts reveals the errors that

warrant review.

D. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. Initial Federal Proceedings and Remand

Petitioners filed suit on April 10, 2023, asserting

claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt

Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, and

42 U.S.C. § 1983 against multiple defendants involved in

the underlying state paternity proceedings. The district

court initially ruled on multiple motions to dismiss, which

were denied in part and granted in part under Younger

abstention in July 2023. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit

reversed the dismissal for reasons unrelated to Younger

and remanded without addressing abstention, leaving

that issue forthe district court. (App., infra, 4a.)

25

2. Amendment and Motion for Preliminary

Injunction

On remand, the district court granted Petitioners

leave to amend the complaint, without restricting the

amendments to exclude injunctive relief claims despite

previously expressing concerns about Younger

abstention. Petitioners then filed a second amended

complaint and moved for a preliminary injunction,

seeking to:

e Transfer the state proceedings to an impartial

forum.

e Protect constitutional and property rights,

including income affected by void state court

orders and threats to Petitioner's medical license.

e Enjoin enforcement of state court orders issued

without jurisdiction.

e Preserve evidence and prevent further misconduct

by state actors.

26

e Safeguard Petitioner from ongoing threats and

harassment.

3. District Court Denial and Related Motions

On July 31, 2024—after previously ruling on motions

to dismiss and granting leave to amend—the district

court revisited Younger abstention, expressing concerns

about its applicability and noting that "It appears that

all three of [Middlesex] factors are met here " (App., infra,

23a); see Middlesex Cnty. Ethics Comm. v. Garden State

Bar Ass'n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982). The court ordered

Petitioner to show cause by August 19, 2024, why

injunctive claims should not be dismissed and damages

claims stayed under Younger (App., infra, 23a-24a).

Critically, the district court denied the preliminary

injunction motion without addressing the merits or

conducting an evidentiary hearing despite constitutional

rights violations and after it afforded the Plaintiffs an

opportunity to amend and to test their claims on the

merits.

27

Coordinated State Court Response: On August 2,

2024, immediately after Petitioner filed an interlocutory

appeal with the Eleventh Circuit (No. 24-12505),

Petitioner notified the state defendants of the appeal via

email (App., infra, 30a-3la). In a_ suspiciously

orchestrated response—within forty minutes—the

Florida Sixth DCA issued an order (App., infra, 32a) to

Judge Barbour (a State Co-Defendant), relinquishing

jurisdiction to her in an apparent attempt to re-enter a

final order and cure the jurisdictional defects they had

been asserting in opposing the injunctive relief. Notably,

one judge on the Florida Sixth District panel had

previously presided over the paternity case.

District Court's Jurisdictional Confusion: On

August 6, 2024, Petitioner filed a motion requesting stay

of proceedings, emphasizing that:

(1) the Younger abstention issue was pending before the

Eleventh Circuit on interlocutory appeal;

28

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-84]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]