FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 6, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 14 66 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 9 :9 9- cr-0 80 78 -WPD-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll ee, vers us W ILLIAM ANDREW

KINSEY, III, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 6 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON an d WILSON, Circu itJu dg es , andKRAVITCH, Sen io r Ju dg e. PER CURI AM: W il li am And rew Kin se y , III, ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er (1 ) di sm is si ng hi s m ot io n fo r cl ari fic at io n fo r la ck of ju ris di ct io n a nd(2) de cl in in g t o t ran sf er h iscas e to a pr op er d is tri ctun de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 63 1. Onap pe al , Kin se y rai se s s ev eral arg um en ts rel at in g t o t he m eri ts of t he § 2 24 1 h ab eas pe ti ti on he ori gi na ll y fil edin th e d is tri ctco urt. Ho wev er, b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to he ar th e m eri ts of h is cla im , th e o nl y is su e b efo re thi s C ou rt i s wh ethe r th e d is tri ctco urt
erre d b y fai li ng to tra ns fer Ki ns ey ’s cas e to th e p ro pe r di st ric t. W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n adi st ric t co urt’s d eci si on no t t o t ran sf er a cas e to an ot he r di stric t due to a la ckof ju ris di ct io n. Dob ar d v . Joh ns on , 74 9 F .2d 15 03 , 15 07 n.8 (11 th Cir . 19 85 ). If a p ers on fil es anact io n i n t he di stric t co urt b ut th e co urt l ack s juris di ct io n o ve r th e cas e, th e co urt s ha ll tra ns fer t he cas e to a pr op er co urt “ if i t i s i n t he in te res t o f jus ti ce.” § 16 31 . W hi le we ha ve no t d efi ne d pr eci se ly wha t t he “ in te res t o f jus ti ce” m ean s i n t he co nt ex t o f a § 16 31 tra ns fer,
on e im po rta ntfact oris whet he r a d en ia l o f a tran sf er wo ul d e ffec ti ve ly bar the pl ai nt iff fro m rel ie f in th e p ro pe r co urt. Se e ITT Ba se Se rvs. v. Hi cks on , 15 5 F .3d 12 72 , 12 76 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (h ol di ng th ata tr an sf er was “ in th e in te res ts of jus ti ce” b ecau se , witho utth e tr an sf er, an ap pe al to th e ap pr op ria te di st ric t co urt
wou ld“pr ob ab ly be ti m e-b arre d” ); se e a ls o Sla ti ck v. Di r., Off ic e o f Worker s’ Co mp. Pr ogra ms , 69 8 F .2d43 3, 4 34 –3 5 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 3) (pe r cu ria m) (tr an sf erri ng a cas e to an ot he r co urt o f ap pe al s wh ere d en y in g t he tra ns fer wo ul d ti m e-b ar t he li ti ga ntfro m fil in g ape ti ti on forrev ie w in th e p ro pe r co urt).

2“ It i s a c ard in al rul e o f ap pe ll at e rev ie w th ata pa rty m ay no t ch al le ng e as erro r a ru li ng or o th er t ria l p ro ceed in g i nv it edby tha t p art y .” Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo ve , 44 9 F .3d11 54 , 11 57 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m) (quo ta ti on m ark s om it te d) . W e co nc lu de th atKin se y in vi te d a ny errorby the di st ric t co urt. Bef or e di sm is si ng Kin se y ’s § 2 24 1 p et it io n fo r la ckof ju ris di ct io n, t he di st ric t co urt sp eci fic al ly requ es te d i np utfro m th e p art ie s o n wh ethe r itsh ou ldtra ns fer t he cas e to a pr op er co urt. Kin se y res po nd edby ask in g t he co urt t o a ss um e juri sd ic ti on an d to rul e o n t he m eri ts of h is cla im . He app eare d t o a ffi rm at iv el y arg ue ag ai ns t a tra ns fer. Th eref

or e, Kin se y

in du cedth e co urt i nt o d en y in g t he tra ns fer a ndwaiv ed hi s ri gh t t o c ha ll en ge th atde ci si on on ap pe al
. Inan y ev en t, t he in te res ts of ju st ic e d idno t warran t a t ran sf er b ecau se , aft er th e co urt’s d is m is sa l, n ot hi ng pre ve nt edKin se y fro m fil in g h is § 2 24 1 p et it io n i n th e p ro pe r di stric t. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n de cl in in g t o t ran sf

er Ki ns ey ’s pet it io n. 1 AFFIRMED.

Kinsey moved this Court for a stay , pending appea l, of the Bur eau of Prison’s withholding 1 of his income for purposes of restitution. We note that Kinsey ’s appea l does not conce rn the merits of his restitution claim and its outcome would not have aff ecte d the withholding of pay ments. In any event, the que stion is m oot beca use this appea l has bee n resolved.

3