Court Opinion

ID: 9951348
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-15 20:01:11.034995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:34.920181
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 24-10450   Document: 7-1      Date Filed: 03/15/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                               No. 24-10450
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

      MANUEL A. JUNES,
                                                   Petitioner-Appellant,
      versus
      SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
      FLORIDA ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                Respondents-Appellees.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Southern District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 1:14-cv-21855-MGC
USCA11 Case: 24-10450      Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 03/15/2024      Page: 2 of 3

      2                      Opinion of the Court                  24-10450

                           ____________________

       Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
      PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
      tion. In February 2024, Manuel Junes, a prisoner proceeding pro se,
      mailed the district court a notice of appeal that appears intended
      for a state appellate court in a state habeas corpus action. The dis-
      trict court docketed the notice in this federal habeas corpus action
      that concluded several years ago. The district court entered a final
      order in this action on May 16, 2018, and we affirmed the denial of
      habeas relief in June 2019.
             To the extent that Junes intends to again appeal the final or-
      der in this federal case, his appeal is untimely and duplicative. The
      statutory time limit required Junes to file a notice of appeal on or
      before November 14, 2018, which was 30 days after the date judg-
      ment was deemed entered on the district court’s May 16, 2018 or-
      der. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A). However,
      Junes did not file the instant notice of appeal until February 6, 2024.
      See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310,
      1314 (11th Cir. 2014) (noting that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal
      is deemed filed on the date that he delivered it to prison authorities
      for mailing, and absent contrary evidence, we assume that a pris-
      oner delivered a filing on the date he signed it).
            Additionally, there is no basis in the record for relief under
      Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6).
USCA11 Case: 24-10450      Document: 7-1     Date Filed: 03/15/2024      Page: 3 of 3

      24-10450               Opinion of the Court                          3

      Accordingly, the notice of appeal is untimely and cannot invoke
      our appellate jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d
      1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that the timely filing of a notice
      of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement, and we can-
      not entertain an appeal that is out of time).
               Even if Junes’s instant notice of appeal was timely, it is du-
      plicative of his prior appeal before us, appeal no. 18-12500, because
      it challenges the same judgment that we affirmed. See United States
      v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978) (holding that an appellant
      “is not entitled to two appeals” from the same judgment); I.A. Dur-
      bin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551–52 (11th Cir.
      1986) (noting that we have inherent administrative power to dis-
      miss duplicative litigation to avoid wasting judicial resources).
             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.