Court Opinion

ID: 9963241
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 20:00:59.34811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:43.888412
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-10452   Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 24-10452
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      MARK T. STINSON, SR.,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
      versus
      MARK YATES, et al.,

                                                          Defendants,

      FCC FORREST CITY WARDEN,
      OFFICER BLAIR,
      LT. RANDLE,
      OFFICER RENDON,
      OFFICER CRAWFORD,
USCA11 Case: 24-10452    Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024   Page: 2 of 3

      2                     Opinion of the Court                24-10452

      BOP, et al.,

                                                 Defendants-Appellees,

      JOHN T. FOWLKES,
      Federal Judge,
      DAMON KEITH GRIFFIN,
      Asst. U.S. Attorney,
      NATHAN PATRICK BROOKS
      U.S. DOJ, Tax Division,
      ARTHUR E. QUINN,
      Public Defender Trial Attorney,
      PATRICK E. STEGALL,
      Public Defender Court Appointed, et al.,

                                          Consol Defendants-Appellees.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-24688-RKA
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 24-10452      Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 04/24/2024      Page: 3 of 3

      24-10452               Opinion of the Court                          3

      Before NEWSOM, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
             This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
      tion. Mark Stinson, Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals from the district
      court’s order transferring his case to the Eastern District of Arkan-
      sas and the Western District of Tennessee and from the court’s pa-
      perless order striking his motion for reconsideration.
              We lack jurisdiction over the transfer order because it was
      entered based on a lack of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and such
      orders are interlocutory and non-appealable. Middlebrooks v. Smith,
      735 F.2d 431, 432-33 (11th Cir. 1984); Stelly v. Emps. Nat’l Ins. Co.,
      431 F.2d 1251, 1253 (5th Cir. 1970). Additionally, we lack jurisdic-
      tion over the court’s paperless order striking Stinson’s motion for
      reconsideration because it is not final, given that he can still pursue
      his claims in the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Western Dis-
      trict of Tennessee, and it is not immediately appealable under the
      collateral order doctrine because it can be effectively reviewed on
      appeal from a final judgment. CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden
      City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE
      v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2012); Plaintiff A v.
      Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014).
             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.