Court Opinion

ID: 9918668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-16 15:01:10.20984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:22.912606
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13250   Document: 29-1    Date Filed: 01/16/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-13250
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       CHRISTOPHER BAYLOR,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       THE FLORIDA KLU KLUX KLAN FOR THE
       TRADITIONALIST AMERICANS,
       United Northern and Southern Chapter,
       and Ladies of the Invisible Empire,
       CHARLES T. CANADY,
       RICKY POLSTON,
       JAMIE GROSSHANS,
       JORGE LABARGA, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-13250     Document: 29-1      Date Filed: 01/16/2024    Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-13250

                                                    Defendants-Appellees.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 6:23-cv-00748-CEM-EJK
                           ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Christopher Baylor appeals from the district court’s “implicit
       denial” of his motion for injunctive relief and his petition to dis-
       qualify the district judge. He further purports to appeal any earlier
       judgments, opinions, rulings, or orders subsumed within that im-
       plicit denial.
              We lack jurisdiction to review an implicit or expected order.
       Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th
       Cir. 1998) (holding that a notice of appeal must designate an al-
       ready existing order and not one that is merely expected to be en-
       tered in the future). The district court has not entered an order on
       Baylor’s motion for injunctive relief or his petition to disqualify.
       The only orders it entered before Baylor appealed were initial or-
       ders regarding discovery motions and case deadlines and an order
       striking Baylor’s initial disclosure statement. Those rulings cannot
       be subsumed within a non-existent order and are not immediately
USCA11 Case: 23-13250      Document: 29-1     Date Filed: 01/16/2024     Page: 3 of 3

       23-13250               Opinion of the Court                         3

       appealable under the collateral order doctrine. See Plaintiff A v.
       Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating that an order
       is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine if it
       conclusively determines a disputed question and is effectively un-
       reviewable on appeal from a final judgment).
              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.