The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has swiftly affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by LeRoy Thomas against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), concluding that Thomas’s new complaint violated a standing injunction dating back to 2004. The appellate court granted the SEC’s request for summary affirmance, finding that Thomas’s appeal was largely outside its jurisdiction and that the core issue—the violation of the injunction—was clear-cut.
The ruling puts a definitive stop, for now, to Thomas’s latest attempt to litigate claims surrounding alleged “missing” securities that have preoccupied federal courts for over two decades.
A Long History of Litigation
LeRoy Thomas has been involved in various legal battles across Florida federal courts since at least the year 2000, primarily targeting the SEC and other entities concerning securities he claims were stolen or lost. The current appeal stems from a complaint Thomas filed in the Northern District of Florida in August 2024, once again alleging the disappearance of these securities.
The SEC immediately challenged this new filing, pointing to a critical hurdle: an injunction issued by Judge Seitz in the Southern District of Florida in May 2004. This “2004 Injunction” explicitly required Thomas to obtain prior leave (permission) from the Southern District of Florida before filing any new action related to those specific “missing securities.”
Because Thomas filed his 2024 complaint in the Northern District without seeking the required permission, the Southern District of Florida, under Judge K. Michael Moore, determined in November 2024 that the filing violated the standing injunction. Following this finding, the Northern District of Florida ordered Thomas to show cause why his case shouldn’t be dismissed. After Thomas responded and his subsequent motions were denied, the Northern District officially dismissed the case in March 2025, citing the violation of the 2004 order.
Jurisdictional Hurdles Block Older Claims
In his appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, Thomas attempted to challenge not only the dismissal of his 2024 case but also various orders from two decades prior associated with the original litigation dockets.
The Eleventh Circuit panel—Judges Rosenbaum, Grant, and Lagoa—made short work of these older challenges. The court noted that when a United States agency is a party, an appeal must be filed within 60 days of the final judgment. Since the orders Thomas sought to appeal are nearly 20 years old, Thomas’s attempt to reopen those proceedings was deemed untimely, falling outside the court’s jurisdiction.
The Injunction Violation Was Clear
Turning to the recent dismissal, the court clarified its standard of review. While a district court’s interpretation of its *own* injunction is usually reviewed for abuse of discretion, the Eleventh Circuit reviews *de novo* (anew, without deference) when one judge (the Northern District) is applying an injunction issued by another judge (Judge Seitz in the Southern District).
However, the court found the application straightforward. The 2004 Injunction unambiguously barred Thomas from filing claims related to the missing securities without prior court approval. Thomas failed to secure that leave, and his new complaint directly addressed the same subject matter.
“The district court therefore correctly dismissed the action as filed in violation of the 2004 Injunction,” the per curiam opinion stated.
Furthermore, the court addressed Thomas’s attempt to appeal the Southern District’s finding that the injunction was violated. The appellate court noted that an order merely concerning the enforcement of a permanent injunction—without holding a party in contempt or imposing a sanction—is generally not a “final decision” under federal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1291) and is therefore not immediately appealable.
Summary Affirmance Granted
Given that the dismissal of the current case was legally sound due to the injunction violation, the Eleventh Circuit determined that the SEC’s position was “clearly right as a matter of law.” Consequently, the court granted the SEC’s motion for summary affirmance, ending this particular legal chapter for Thomas. Any challenges Thomas raised regarding the case being held in abeyance were rendered moot by the final dismissal.
The opinion, designated “NOT FOR PUBLICATION,” confirms the court’s reluctance to revisit long-settled matters and its firm stance on enforcing existing judicial orders designed to manage repetitive litigation.