Michael DeWayne Arrington v. Miami Dade County Public School District

── Michael DeWayne Arrington v. Miami Dade County Public School District ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: June 02, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-13636 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 Page: 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13636 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MICHAEL DEWAYNE ARRINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MIAMI DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT, SUPERINTENDENT AND/OR DIRECTOR OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS DISTRICT, Alberto Carvalho, individually and in his official capacity, GEORGE T. BAKER AVIATION SCHOOL, PRINCIPAL OF GEORGE T. BAKER AVIATION SCHOOL, Sean Gallagan individually and in his official capacity, ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL, GEORGE T. BAKER AVIATION SCHOOL, George W. Sands, individually and in his official capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 25-13636 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 Page: 2 of 7 2 Opinion of the Court 25-13636 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-24114-JEM ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Michael Arrington, pro se, appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reopen the time to appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(6). After careful review, we affirm the denial of his motion. I. This is the latest in a string of motions and appeals Arrington has filed seeking to relitigate issues already decided against him. In 2020, we affirmed the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil-rights lawsuit, which alleged that he was discriminated against based on his race while enrolled as a student at a Florida public technical college. See Arrington v. Miami Dade Cnty. Pub. Sch. Dist. (“Arrington I”), 835 F. App’x 418 (11th Cir. 2020). After we issued the mandate, Arrington moved for relief in the district court under Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., arguing that Ar- rington I was wrongly decided. The district court denied the mo- tion, and we affirmed on appeal. See Arrington v. Miami Dade Cnty. Pub. Sch. Dist. (“Arrington II”), No. 21-11569, 2021 WL 4940820 (11th Cir. Oct. 22, 2021). Arrington then asked for and was denied USCA11 Case: 25-13636 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 06/02/2026 Page: 3 of 7 25-13636 Opinion of the Court 3 relief from Arrington II, and, again, we affirmed on appeal. See Ar- rington v. Miami Dade Cnty. Pub. Sch. Dist. (“Arrington III”), No. 22- 11943, 2023 WL 2468333 (11th Cir. Mar. 13, 2023). After we denied rehearing and issued the mandate in Arring- ton III on July 10, 2023, Arrington continued to seek reconsidera- tion in this Court. His motions were returned to him by the clerk in notices dated July 21, 2023, and August 2, 2023, with the follow- ing statement: “NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN because this is a motion addressing the district court. Additionally, this appeal is closed. No further relief is available from this court.” Meanwhile, in the district court, Arrington filed two mo- tions for reconsideration on July 27,