Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-24-13449/USCOURTS-ca11-24-13449-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Feneche
Appellee
Garza
Appellee
William Kendall
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-13449

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

WILLIAM KENDALL, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

J.P. CARNER, et al.,

Defendants, 

CAPTAIN FENECHE, 

(John Doe),

OFFICER GARZA,

(John Doe), 

USCA11 Case: 24-13449 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 1 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 24-13449

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cv-00433-JLB-KCD

____________________

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

William Kendall, pro se, appeals from the district court’s September 19, 2024 order dismissing his claims against three of the defendants. The district court’s order was not final and appealable 

however, because it did not end the proceedings on the merits. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 

(11th Cir. 2022) (stating that an appealable final order ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment).

Kendall’s claims against defendants Garza and Feneche remain pending before the district court, and the court did not certify 

its September 19 order for immediate review under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 

689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not 

immediately appealable absent certification pursuant to Rule

54(b)). Nor is the district court’s September 19 order effectively 

USCA11 Case: 24-13449 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 2 of 3
24-13449 Opinion of the Court 3

unreviewable on appeal from a final order resolving the case on the 

merits. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 

2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the litigation 

may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it, inter alia, 

is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment”).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack 

of jurisdiction. 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: 24-13449 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 3 of 3