No Backdoor via Rule 60(b)(4): Eleventh Circuit Reaffirms Law‑of‑the‑Case Limits and Imposes Rule 38 Sanctions in Foley v. Orange County

Introduction

In this unpublished, per curiam opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of David and Jennifer Foley’s Rule 60(b)(4) motion to vacate a federal judgment as void and granted appellees’ motions for sanctions under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38. The decision addresses two recurring themes in post-judgment practice:

Rule 60(b)(4)’s “void judgment” relief cannot be used to relitigate issues already decided by the appellate court in the same case; the law-of-the-case doctrine forecloses that path absent narrow exceptions.
Pro se litigants who persist in clearly frivolous appeals after explicit judicial warnings may be sanctioned with attorney’s fees and double costs under Rule 38.

The case arises out of a long-running dispute between the Foleys and Orange County, Florida, over a residential aviary used to breed toucans. After losing in state court, then in multiple federal suits and appeals—including an affirmance on res judicata grounds and a separate affirmance of vexatious-litigant restrictions—the Foleys sought to set aside the federal judgment as void under Rule 60(b)(4). They argued that the prior appellate decision (Foley V) misconstrued their complaint and property interests, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction and due process. The Eleventh Circuit rejected these arguments, applied law-of-the-case, and imposed sanctions for a clearly frivolous appeal.

Summary of the Opinion

The Eleventh Circuit (Judges Newsom, Grant, and Brasher) held:

Affirmance of Rule 60(b)(4) denial: A judgment is “void” only if the issuing court lacked jurisdiction or violated due process. The Foleys’ arguments merely repackaged issues decided in an earlier appeal (Foley V) and thus were barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine. No exception (new evidence, intervening contrary authority, or clear error causing manifest injustice) applied.
Abandonment of certain issues: Because the Foleys did not brief why the vexatious-litigant order and an attorney’s fees order were void, those challenges were abandoned on appeal.
Sanctions for frivolous appeal: After a prior warning from the district court, the Foleys pressed a clearly frivolous appeal. The court granted Rule 38 motions, awarding appellees attorney’s fees for the appeal and double costs, and remanded for calculation of amounts.
Procedural housekeeping: The court granted a motion to deem one appellee group's sanctions motion—erroneously filed under a prior appeal number—as timely in this appeal.

Background and Procedural History

2007 Code Enforcement: Orange County determined the Foleys’ residential aviary required permits they did not obtain. The Foleys lost in state court (Foley I) and on appeal (Foley II), and ultimately dismantled the aviary and made accommodations for their toucans.
First federal suit (Foley III): Pro se federal constitutional claims against the County and nineteen personnel. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal, concluding the claims were so frivolous that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946).
Second state suit (Foley IV): State-law and state takings claims; the federal takings claim was dropped. The state court rejected all claims.
Second federal suit (Foley V): New federal claims for procedural due process and takings. Dismissed on res judicata grounds; affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit, which held Florida claim-preclusion barred claims that were or could have been raised previously. The Supreme Court denied certiorari. The district court also declared the Foleys vexatious litigants; that order was affirmed (Foley VI).
Rule 60(b)(4) motion: After Foley VI, the Foleys asked the district court to vacate its dismissal order, the judgment, the vexatious-litigant order, and a fee order as “void.” The district court denied the motion and warned that further frivolous filings would trigger sanctions. The present appeal followed, accompanied by appellees’ Rule 38 sanctions requests.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Role

Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, 771 F.3d 713, 736 (11th Cir. 2014): Establishes de novo review for denials of Rule 60(b)(4) motions. The panel applies this standard.
Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014): Issues not briefed are abandoned on appeal. The court uses Sapuppo to deem abandoned the Foleys’ challenges to the vexatious-litigant and fee orders.
Burke v. Smith, 252 F.3d 1260, 1263 (11th Cir. 2001): A judgment is void for Rule 60(b)(4) purposes only if the court lacked jurisdiction or the judgment was entered in violation of due process. This frames the narrow voidness inquiry.
Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 528–29 (2005): Rule 60(b) movants bear the burden of justifying relief. While Gonzales addresses Rule 60(b)(6), the court cites it for the general proposition that the movant must supply a qualifying reason.
Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1289, 1292 (11th Cir. 2005): Law-of-the-case doctrine binds later stages of the same litigation absent three narrow exceptions (new evidence, intervening contrary authority, or clear error causing manifest injustice). This doctrine is the backbone of the court’s rejection of the Foleys’ 60(b)(4) arguments.
This That & The Other Gift & Tobacco, Inc. v. Cobb County, 439 F.3d 1275, 1283 (11th Cir. 2006): Reiterates that appellate findings bind subsequent proceedings in the same case. The panel applies this to bar relitigation of issues decided in Foley V.
Laskar v. Peterson, 771 F.3d 1291, 1300 (11th Cir. 2014): Cited by the Foleys to argue a state-court ruling created a new, intervening due process basis. The panel distinguishes Laskar and rejects its applicability here, as Foley V had already considered and rejected that contention.
Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A., 898 F.3d 1348, 1359 (11th Cir. 2018): Authorizes attorney’s fees and double costs under Rule 38 for a clearly frivolous appeal.
Parker v. American Traffic Solutions, Inc., 835 F.3d 1363, 1371 (11th Cir. 2016): Defines a clearly frivolous appeal as one whose substantive arguments lack all merit. Applied to justify sanctions here.
United States v. Morse, 532 F.3d 1130, 1133 (11th Cir. 2008): Sanctioning a pro se litigant is appropriate after the litigant has been warned of frivolousness. The panel relies on the district court’s warning to impose Rule 38 sanctions.
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946): Used earlier in Foley III to affirm dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction when claims are wholly insubstantial. While not the focus of this appeal, Bell underscores the court’s prior assessment of the merits.

Legal Reasoning

1) The narrow scope of Rule 60(b)(4) voidness

Rule 60(b)(4) permits vacating a judgment only if the rendering court lacked jurisdiction or violated due process. It does not authorize relief for ordinary legal error. The Foleys framed their arguments as jurisdictional and due-process defects, contending that Foley V misidentified the property interest (an aviary versus the toucans themselves) and misconstrued the complaint as reasserting prior state claims rather than attacking the state judgment’s validity.

The court held these contentions merely recapitulate issues actually decided in Foley V. In Foley V, the panel necessarily determined the identity of the property interest and the preclusive effect of the state proceedings, and it expressly considered and rejected the Foleys’ theory that the state judgment created a new constitutional claim (distinguishing Laskar). Because Rule 60(b)(4) cannot be used to re-argue matters already decided, and because no true jurisdictional or due-process defect was shown, voidness relief was unavailable.

2) Law-of-the-case forecloses relitigation

Law-of-the-case binds later stages of the same litigation to prior appellate determinations of fact and law. Foley V resolved the same issues the Foleys tried to repackage as 60(b)(4) defects. The court therefore applied law-of-the-case to bar the 60(b)(4) challenge. None of the three exceptions applied:

New evidence: None identified.
Intervening contrary controlling authority: None cited.
Clear error causing manifest injustice: Foley V’s preclusion analysis under Florida law and its rejection of the “invalid state judgment as new federal claim” theory were not clearly erroneous; thus the exception failed outright.

3) Abandonment of unbriefed issues

The Foleys appealed the denial of their attempt to void the vexatious-litigant order and a fee order, but failed to brief why those orders were void. Under Sapuppo, those challenges were abandoned. This underscores a recurring appellate principle: issues not meaningfully argued are forfeited.

4) Sanctions under Rule 38

The court granted appellees’ motions for sanctions because the appeal was clearly frivolous and the Foleys proceeded after a warning. The panel emphasized:

Frivolousness standard: An appeal is clearly frivolous when its substantive arguments lack all merit (Parker).
Pro se status: Sanctions are appropriate against pro se litigants after a warning (Morse). The district court warned the Foleys that further frivolous filings would result in sanctions—yet they filed this appeal anyway.
Relief granted: Attorney’s fees for the appeal and double costs awarded, with remand to quantify amounts (Jackson).

As a procedural matter, the panel also granted the Officials’ motion to treat their sanctions motion—mistakenly filed under a different appeal number—as timely in this case. This shows limited procedural flexibility when no prejudice results.

Impact and Significance

Rule 60(b)(4) is not a do-over: Litigants cannot rebrand previously rejected merits arguments as “jurisdictional” or “due process” defects to obtain void-judgment relief. Once an appellate court has decided the controlling issues in the same case, law-of-the-case blocks Rule 60(b)(4) end-runs absent the narrow Schiavo exceptions.
Finality reinforced: The opinion strengthens the finality of judgments and mandates by declining to revisit Foley V and by “declin[ing] to vacate our mandate.” This discourages serial collateral attacks after appellate affirmance.
Preclusion clarity: Where a prior decision rests on claim preclusion, subsequent motions that dispute how the earlier panel characterized the claims or property interests will typically be barred.
Sanctions warning to repeat litigants, including pro se: Pro se status does not confer immunity from sanctions. After a warning, filing an appeal devoid of merit can trigger attorney’s fees and double costs under Rule 38.
Procedural lessons for practitioners: If a sanctions motion is mis-docketed but promptly corrected, courts may deem it timely where no prejudice is shown. But that procedural leniency will not translate into tolerance for frivolous substantive filings.
Government code enforcement context: For local governments, the decision affirms the durability of state-court outcomes and subsequent federal preclusion defenses in recurring land-use/code enforcement disputes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rule 60(b)(4) “void judgment” relief: A judgment is “void” only in rare circumstances—when the court that entered it lacked jurisdiction (power to hear the case) or denied due process (e.g., no notice or opportunity to be heard). Mere legal mistakes do not make a judgment void. If the issue is that the court got the law wrong, the remedy is direct appeal, not Rule 60(b)(4).
Law-of-the-case doctrine: Once an appellate court decides an issue, that decision controls the same issue in later stages of the same case. There are only three exceptions: (1) new evidence, (2) intervening controlling authority that is contrary, or (3) the earlier ruling was clearly erroneous and enforcing it would cause manifest injustice. These exceptions are narrow and difficult to meet.
Res judicata (claim preclusion): This doctrine prevents parties from relitigating claims that were or could have been raised in a prior action involving the same parties and the same transaction or occurrence. In Foley V, the Eleventh Circuit applied Florida’s standard and concluded the Foleys’ federal claims were precluded.
“Complaint is king”: This phrase colloquially means courts evaluate motions by looking to the complaint’s allegations. But where an earlier appellate decision has already defined and resolved the core issues (such as the relevant property interest or the nature of the claims), law-of-the-case controls, and litigants cannot recharacterize those issues via a new “complaint is king” framing.
FRAP 38 sanctions for frivolous appeals: If an appeal is clearly frivolous—meaning the arguments have no arguable legal merit—an appellate court may award the appellee attorney’s fees and double costs. Pro se litigants can be sanctioned after being warned not to file frivolous papers.
Abandonment on appeal: Appellants must actually argue why a lower court erred. If they do not brief an issue or provide reasoned argument, that issue is treated as abandoned and will not be reviewed.
Vacating a mandate: An appellate mandate formally ends the appeal and returns jurisdiction to the lower court. Vacating a mandate is extraordinary; here, the court expressly refused to do so, reinforcing finality.

Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit’s decision delivers two clear messages. First, Rule 60(b)(4) is a narrow, jurisdiction-and-due-process safety valve—not a vehicle for relitigating issues already resolved on appeal. When law-of-the-case applies and no exception is present, a voidness motion cannot reopen settled matters. Second, appellate courts will sanction litigants who persist in meritless appeals after being warned—pro se or not—by awarding attorney’s fees and double costs under Rule 38.

For practitioners and litigants, the opinion underscores the primacy of finality, the limited scope of Rule 60(b)(4), and the importance of carefully evaluating the viability of post-judgment and appellate strategies. For courts, it offers a concise, disciplined application of law-of-the-case and an enforcement of deterrent measures against repetitive, frivolous litigation. Although unpublished, the decision provides a practical roadmap for handling serial Rule 60(b)(4) motions and for calibrating sanctions in the face of clearly frivolous appeals.

Case Disposition

Denial of Rule 60(b)(4) motion: Affirmed.
Sanctions motions: Granted; attorney’s fees for the appeal and double costs awarded; remanded to the district court to determine amounts.
Officials’ mis-docketed sanctions motion: Deemed timely in this appeal.