Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13207/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13207-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13207

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

MARCO THONY CADEJUSTE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF FT. PIERCE,

Policy Makers,

COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE,

Policy Makers,

JOHN DOE #1, 

Ofc.,

JOHN DOE #2, 

Ofc.,

JOHN DOE #3, et al.,

USCA11 Case: 23-13207 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 1 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13207

Ofc.,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-14274-DMM

____________________

Before WILSON, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Marco Cadejuste appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

his pro se civil rights complaint without prejudice and with leave 

to amend. Cadejuste also moves this Court to take judicial notice 

of a motion that he filed before the district court to disqualify the 

district court judge, and to take notice that his property was taken 

from him while incarcerated. We dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction and deny Cadejuste’s motions.

We must inquire into our own subject matter jurisdiction 

whenever it may be lacking. Barwick v. Governor of Florida, 66 F.4th 

896, 900 (11th Cir. 2023). Except in limited circumstances not applicable here, we “have jurisdiction for appeals from final orders 

only.” CSX Transp., Inc. v. Kissimmee Util. Auth., 153 F.3d 1283, 1285 

(11th Cir. 1998); see 28 U.S.C. § 1291. “Section 1291 does not permit 

USCA11 Case: 23-13207 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 2 of 4
23-13207 Opinion of the Court 3

appeals, even from fully consummated decisions, where they are 

but steps towards final judgment in which they will merge.” Id. 

(quotation omitted). 

“A final order is one that ends the litigation on the merits 

and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment.” 

World Fuel Corp. v. Geithner, 568 F.3d 1345, 1348 (11th Cir. 2009) 

(quotation omitted). A district court order that “contemplates further substantive proceedings in a case is not final and appealable.” 

Freyre v. Chronister, 910 F.3d 1371, 1377 (11th Cir. 2018). 

An order dismissing a complaint without prejudice “does 

not automatically terminate the action unless the court holds either 

that no amendment is possible or that the dismissal of the complaint also constitutes a dismissal of the action.” Czeremcha v. Int’l 

Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 724 F.2d 1552, 

1554 (11th Cir. 1984). If the district court’s order dismisses the complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend, the plaintiff has 

the choice of either filing an amended complaint or “treating the 

order as final and filing for appeal.” Id.; see Garfield v. NDC Health 

Corp., 466 F.3d 1255, 1260–61 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Here, the district court’s order dismissed Cadejuste’s complaint without prejudice and with leave to file an amended complaint by October 6, 2023. The dismissal order did not become final 

because Cadejuste elected to file an amended complaint before the 

court’s deadline. See Czeremcha, 724 F.2d at 1554–55. The notice of 

appeal, which was filed the same day but docketed after the 

amended complaint, was ineffective to invoke our appellate 

USCA11 Case: 23-13207 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 3 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 23-13207

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Freyre, 910 F.3d at 1377. We 

therefore DISMISS the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. And because 

we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we DENY Cadejuste’s motions to take judicial notice.

DISMISSED.

USCA11 Case: 23-13207 Document: 32-1 Date Filed: 12/04/2024 Page: 4 of 4