Court Opinion

ID: 9892310
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-23 15:01:03.826065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:03:58.218362
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-12214    Document: 11-1      Date Filed: 10/23/2023   Page: 1 of 2

                                                   [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                 No. 23-12214
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       DANTE BENJAMIN HAYWARD,
                                                       Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       BRIAN MUNDY,
       Sergeant of K-9, Eﬃngham Sheriﬀ's
       Department, individual and oﬃcial capacities,
       DEPUTY CALEB GROVENSTEIN,
       Eﬃngham County Sheriﬀ's Department,
       individual and oﬃcial capacities,
       JUDGE F. GATES PEED,
       Individual and oﬃcial capacities,
       BRIAN A. DEAL,
       Prosecutor, individual and oﬃcial capacities,
USCA11 Case: 23-12214      Document: 11-1       Date Filed: 10/23/2023     Page: 2 of 2

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  23-12214

       MAGISTRATE JOHN DOE 1, et al.,
       Individual and oﬃcial capacities,

                                                      Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 4:23-cv-00045-CLR
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. The district court’s order denying Dante Hayward’s motion
       to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is not a ﬁnal, appealable or-
       der. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; see also Isaac v. United States, 809 F. App’x
       595, 597 (11th Cir. 2020) (citing Gomez v. United States, 245 F.2d 346,
       347 (5th Cir. 1957) (stating that an order denying a motion to appeal
       in forma pauperis is not a ﬁnal, appealable order). The proper pro-
       cedure for review of such an order is to renew the motion before
       this Court. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5) & advisory committee notes
       (1967 Adoption).
              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.