Sole v. Wyner
Wyner sued the manager of a Florida State Park and the head of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection alleging that a park regulation prohibiting nudity in Florida's state parks violated Wyner's First Amendment rights to conduct nude political protests and artistic performances on the beach. A federal district court entered a preliminary injunction that prevented the parks from interfering with Wyner's planned protest (creating a nude peace symbol on the beach). Wyner later lost her claim for a permanent injunction, but the district court determined that Wyner was the prevailing party as to the preliminary injunction, and awarded her attorneys' fees and costs.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the preliminary injuction decided a substantive decision on the merits of the case (whether the state could arrest the nude peace symbol participants) and that the district court's award of the injunction was not a mistake of law.
Question Presented:
Whether the 11th Circuit decision in Wyner v. Struhs, 179 Fed.Appx. 566, 2006 WL 1071850 (C.A.11 (Fla.). (App.la) is correct in holding that a preliminary injunction is relief on the merits, or whether the Fourth Circuit decision in Smyth v. Rivero, 282 F.2d 268 (4th Cir. 2002), certiorari denied by 537 U.S. 825(2002), is correct in holding that a preliminary injunction is not a ruling on the merits and thus cannot be the basis for prevailing party status?
Whether the Eleventh Circuit in Wyner v. Struhs, 179 Fed.Appx. 566, 2006 WL 1071850 (C.A.11(Fla.). (App. la) was incorrect in affirming the district court’s order finding that Respondents are prevailing parties where their request for permanent injunctive relief was denied, although at an abbreviated hearing Respondents were awarded interim relief?
