Court Opinion

ID: 9953859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-22 21:01:46.977922+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:10:29.980994
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-10301   Document: 6-1     Date Filed: 03/22/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 24-10301
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      TABITHA MCKENZIE,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
      versus
      CHIEF JUDGE,
      CASEY T. BARREN,
      Lawyer For DCF,
      LISA TANNER,
      Case Manager,

                                                Defendants-Appellees,
USCA11 Case: 24-10301     Document: 6-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2024     Page: 2 of 3

      2                      Opinion of the Court                 24-10301

      BRITTNEY BAXTER,
      Case Manager,

                                                                Defendant.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 4:23-cv-00470-WS-MJF
                          ____________________

      Before GRANT, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
             In these proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Tabitha
      McKenzie appeals from the district court’s January 24, 2024 order
      affirming a magistrate judge’s denial of her motion to appoint
      counsel. The district court’s order was not final and appealable,
      however, because it did not end the § 1983 proceedings on the mer-
      its.   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).
              McKenzie’s § 1983 complaint remains pending before the
      district court, and the court did not certify its January 24 order for
      immediate review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See
USCA11 Case: 24-10301      Document: 6-1     Date Filed: 03/22/2024      Page: 3 of 3

      24-10301               Opinion of the Court                          3

      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 Jan-
      uary 24 order effectively 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 collat-
      eral order doctrine if it, inter alia, is “effectively unreviewable on
      appeal from a final judgment”); Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 851-54
      (11th Cir. 1989) (en banc) (holding that an order denying the ap-
      pointment of counsel in a § 1983 action is not immediately appeal-
      able under the collateral order doctrine).
              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.