Court Opinion

ID: 9942061
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-20 15:00:51.643069+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:40.564623
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-14213    Document: 14-1     Date Filed: 02/20/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                No. 23-14213
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       SIRTAJ MATHAUDA,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
       versus
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                  Respondent-Appellee.

                          ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:18-cv-22057-JAL
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 23-14213      Document: 14-1       Date Filed: 02/20/2024     Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-14213

       Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Sirtaj Mathauda, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s
       October 21, 2020, final order and judgment in his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
       proceedings. Mathauda timely appealed that judgment in Novem-
       ber 2020 and, in appeal number 20-14623, we denied a certificate of
       appealability.
                Mathauda’s appeal is duplicative and untimely. We may use
       our inherent administrative power to dismiss duplicative litigation
       to avoid wasting judicial resources. Colo. River Water Conservation
       Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817-18 (1976); accord I.A. Durbin,
       Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986). An-
       other appeal of the § 2255 judgment would be duplicative. See
       United States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978) (noting that
       an appellant is not generally entitled to two appeals from the same
       judgment).
              Further, the statutory time limit required Mathauda to file a
       notice of appeal on or before December 21, 2020, the first Monday
       following 60 days after the district court entered its judgment. See
       28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), 26(a)(1)(C). How-
       ever, he did not file the instant notice of appeal until December 28,
       2023, and thus, it cannot invoke our jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug
       Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010).
USCA11 Case: 23-14213     Document: 14-1     Date Filed: 02/20/2024   Page: 3 of 3

       23-14213              Opinion of the Court                       3

             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.