Court Opinion

ID: 9964639
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-30 16:00:47.742985+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:38.316498
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-11028   Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 04/30/2024   Page: 1 of 2

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 24-11028
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       NAVADO J. JONES,
                                                              Petitioner,
       versus
       ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF GEORGIA,
       COMMISSIONER, GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF
       LABOR,

                                                          Respondents.

                          ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                             Department of Labor
USCA11 Case: 24-11028      Document: 13-1      Date Filed: 04/30/2024     Page: 2 of 2

       2                      Opinion of the Court                  24-11028

                             Agency No. 19CV12414
                            ____________________

       Before WILSON, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Navado Jones appears to appeal directly from a decision of
       the Georgia Court of Appeals related to the Georgia Department
       of Labor’s denial of unemployment insurance benefits to Jones.
       However, we lack jurisdiction to review decisions by state courts
       or state agencies. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1294(1), 2342; Fed. R. App. P. 5,
       15; Vasquez v. YII Shipping Co., 692 F.3d 1192, 1195 (11th Cir. 2012)
       (“[F]ederal courts below the Supreme Court must not become a
       court of appeals for state court decisions.”); Staley v. Ledbetter, 837
       F.2d 1016, 1017-18 (11th Cir. 1988) (holding that district court
       lacked jurisdiction over 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit that effectively “chal-
       lenge[d] collaterally the state agency and court proceedings that
       terminated [appellant’s] parental rights” and noting that “federal
       courts are not a forum for appealing state court decisions”).
             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.