Court Opinion

ID: 9400916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-09 19:01:27.912148+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.377570
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11628   Document: 11-1    Date Filed: 06/09/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-11628
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       TIFFANY HARRIS,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

                                                 Defendant-Appellee,

       DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, et al.,

                                                          Defendants.
USCA11 Case: 23-11628      Document: 11-1       Date Filed: 06/09/2023     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-11628

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Alabama
                    D.C. Docket Nos. 2:22-cv-00193-CLM,
                              2:22-cv-00194-CLM
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. To the extent Tiffany Harris seeks to have her case trans-
       ferred from the district court to this Court, that request is im-
       proper. Our jurisdiction is generally limited to final decisions of
       the district courts, and the district court has not entered a final or-
       der resolving the litigation on the merits in this case. See
       28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986
       (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that a final order ends litigation on the mer-
       its and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment).
       We also lack jurisdiction to the extent Harris seeks appellate review
       of the district court’s text order denying her motion to transfer
       venue. That order is not final because it did not end the litigation
       on the merits, and it is not immediately appealable under the col-
       lateral order doctrine because it is not effectively unreviewable on
       appeal from a final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247,
       1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not con-
       clude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order
USCA11 Case: 23-11628      Document: 11-1      Date Filed: 06/09/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-11628               Opinion of the Court                          3

       doctrine if, inter alia, it is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from
       a final judgment”).
              All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 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.