Court Opinion

ID: 9949765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 16:01:02.55469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:14.561042
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-14060   Document: 7-1      Date Filed: 03/12/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                  In the
               United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-14060
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      KELVIN B. STEPHENS,
                                                     Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
      versus
      HOMEWOOD SUITES,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                   for the Northern District of Georgia
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-03273-MHC
                         ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-14060      Document: 7-1      Date Filed: 03/12/2024     Page: 2 of 3

      2                       Opinion of the Court                 23-14060

      Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction
       to the extent that it challenges the district court’s November 22,
       2023, and December 5, 2023, orders. The appeal from the Novem-
       ber 23, 2023, final order and judgment shall proceed in a new, sep-
       arate appeal.
               Kelvin Stephens, proceeding pro se, filed two notices of ap-
       peal in this action, one on December 13, 2023, and the other on
       December 19, 2023. The district court docketed the latter as an
       amended notice of appeal. In his December 13, 2023, notice of ap-
       peal, Stephens appeals from the district court’s November 22, 2023,
       order denying him leave to appeal in forma pauperis, as clarified by
       its December 5, 2023, order. The November 22, 2023, order is not
       final, and the proper procedure to secure relief from a district court
       order denying an application to appeal in forma pauperis is not to
       appeal the denial but to file a renewed motion with this Court. See
       Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5); Gomez v. United States, 245 F.2d 346, 347
       (5th Cir. 1957). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction as to the Decem-
       ber 13, 2023, notice of appeal challenging the district court’s No-
       vember 22, 2023, and December 5, 2023, orders.
             In his December 19, 2023, notice of appeal, Stephens appeals
       broadly from “the above stated cause of action,” which we liberally
       construe as challenging the November 23, 2023, order and judg-
       ment resolving the case. See Davila v. Gladden, 777 F.3d 1198, 1208
USCA11 Case: 23-14060     Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 03/12/2024    Page: 3 of 3

      23-14060              Opinion of the Court                        3

      n.5 (11th Cir. 2015). The November 23, 2023, order and judgment
      are final and appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp., Inc. v.
      City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000).
              Stephens’s December 19, 2023 notice of appeal was dock-
      eted as an amended notice of appeal in this appeal, but that appeal
      of the final order and judgment should proceed separately. Accord-
      ingly, the clerk is DIRECTED to close this appeal, create a new ap-
      peal, and docket in the new appeal Stephens’s December 19, 2023
      notice of appeal and his pending motion to appeal in forma pauperis.
             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.