Court Opinion

ID: 9440286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 15:01:30.546816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:45.992078
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11029             Document: 5-2        Date Filed: 08/03/2023       Page: 1 of 2

                       IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                  ________________________

                                        No. 23-11029-C
                                   ________________________

PETER GEORGACARAKOS,

                                                                       Petitioner-Appellant,

                                               versus

WARDEN, FCC COLEMAN-MEDIUM,

                                                                       Respondent-Appellee.
                                   ________________________

                           Appeal from the United States District Court
                               for the Middle District of Florida
                                 ________________________

Before: WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

       This appeal is DISMISSED IN PART, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction because Peter

Georgacarakos’s notice of appeal, deemed filed on March 24, 2023, was untimely to appeal from

the district court’s September 1, 2022 order and September 2, 2022 judgment dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice. See Green v. Drug Enf’t

Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300-02 (11th Cir. 2010); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (c)(1); Jeffries

v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014). Furthermore, while Georgacarakos’s first

motion for reconsideration tolled the period to appeal from the September 2, 2022 judgment, his

second motion for reconsideration did not because it was filed more than 28 days after that

judgment and raised substantially similar challenges to the order dismissing his petition as his first

motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Wansor
 USCA11 Case: 23-11029             Document: 5-2       Date Filed: 08/03/2023        Page: 2 of 2

v. George Hantscho Co., 570 F.2d 1202, 1206, n.5 (5th Cir. 1978); Wright v. Preferred Research,

Inc., 891 F.2d 886, 889 (11th Cir. 1990). However, Georgacarakos’s March 24, 2023 notice of

appeal was timely to appeal from the district court’s March 21, 2023 order denying his second

motion for reconsideration, and, because his second motion for reconsideration tolled the time to

appeal the court’s denial of his first motion for reconsideration, his notice of appeal is also timely

as to the court’s October 17, 2022 order denying his first motion for reconsideration. See Fed.

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (a)(4)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Williams v. Bolger, 633 F.2d 410, 413 (5th

Cir. 1980).

       Accordingly, Georgacarakos’s appeal is dismissed to the extent he challenges the district

court’s order and judgment dismissing his § 2241 petition and may proceed only as to his challenge

to the district court’s October 17, 2022 and March 21, 2023 orders. No motion for reconsideration

may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2 and all

other applicable rules.

                                                  2