Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13250/USCOURTS-ca11-23-13250-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 23-13250

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

CHRISTOPHER BAYLOR, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE FLORIDA KLU KLUX KLAN FOR THE 

TRADITIONALIST AMERICANS, 

United Northern and Southern Chapter, 

and Ladies of the Invisible Empire, 

CHARLES T. CANADY, 

RICKY POLSTON, 

JAMIE GROSSHANS, 

JORGE LABARGA, et al.,

USCA11 Case: 23-13250 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2024 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 23-13250

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-00748-CEM-EJK

____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Christopher Baylor appeals from the district court’s “implicit 

denial” of his motion for injunctive relief and his petition to disqualify the district judge. He further purports to appeal any earlier 

judgments, opinions, rulings, or orders subsumed within that implicit denial. 

We lack jurisdiction to review an implicit or expected order. 

Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th 

Cir. 1998) (holding that a notice of appeal must designate an already existing order and not one that is merely expected to be entered in the future). The district court has not entered an order on 

Baylor’s motion for injunctive relief or his petition to disqualify. 

The only orders it entered before Baylor appealed were initial orders regarding discovery motions and case deadlines and an order 

striking Baylor’s initial disclosure statement. Those rulings cannot 

be subsumed within a non-existent order and are not immediately 

USCA11 Case: 23-13250 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2024 Page: 2 of 3
23-13250 Opinion of the Court 3

appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See Plaintiff A v. 

Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating that an order 

is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine if it 

conclusively determines a disputed question and is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment). 

No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies 

with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all 

other applicable rules.

USCA11 Case: 23-13250 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 01/16/2024 Page: 3 of 3