Court Opinion

ID: 9399933
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-06 19:01:24.697638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:40.910754
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10913    Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 06/06/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                          ____________________

                                 No. 23-10913
                           Non-Argument Calendar
                          ____________________

       TAMIKO N. PEELE,
       Individually on Behalf of Themselves,
       ROBERT L. WALKER,
       Individually on Behalf of Themselves,
                                                   Plaintiﬀs-Appellants,
       versus
       17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF FLORIDA,
       BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA,
       it's Court Registry Depository Funds of Federal Reserve
       Notes $180,030.00 U.S. Currency, it's Records Division
       Instrument numbers 117519100, 112300593,
       115467945, 113178049,
       DOES 1-3,
USCA11 Case: 23-10913     Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 06/06/2023    Page: 2 of 3

       2                     Opinion of the Court                 23-10913

       inclusive in their individual andoﬃcial capacity,
       UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
       through its Social Security Administration Program,
       it's Cooperative Disability Investigations Program (CDI)
       and its Social Insurance Administrators Velma T. Blaine,
       James Peavy, Antonio Miguel Quinones, Brian Garber,
       DOES 1-11,
       inclusive and in their oﬃcial and individual capacity,
       THE FLORIDA BAR CLIENTS' SECURITY FUND, et al.,

                                                    Defendants-Appellees.

                           ____________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                    D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-14037-AMC
                          ____________________

       Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Tamiko Peele and Robert Walker have filed an interlocutory
       notice of appeal, opening this appeal, as well as an appeal from the
       district court’s final order dismissing their case, which opened Ap-
       peal No. 23-10916. They move to voluntarily dismiss Appeal No.
       23-10916 as duplicative or, alternatively, to consolidate their ap-
       peals. Because this appeal challenges several interlocutory orders,
USCA11 Case: 23-10913      Document: 30-1     Date Filed: 06/06/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-10913               Opinion of the Court                         3

       it raises questions concerning the appealability of those orders. See
       8 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235
       F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000).
               An appeal from the final judgment brings up for review all
       preceding nonfinal orders that produced the judgment. See Kong v.
       Allied Pro. Ins. Co., 750 F.3d 1295, 1301 (11th Cir. 2014); Hunter v.
       Dept. of Air Force Agency, 846 F.2d 1314, 1316-17 (11th Cir. 1988).
       We may use our inherent administrative power to dismiss duplica-
       tive litigation to avoid wasting judicial resources. See I.A. Durbin,
       Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551 (11th Cir. 1986);
       United States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1978); Sinochem
       Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007).
              While consolidating these appeals would save judicial re-
       sources, we would still need to address the jurisdictional issues
       raised by this appeal. However, Peele and Walker can raise all is-
       sues in their later appeal from the final order dismissing their case.
       See Hunter, 846 F.2d at 1316-17. Therefore, in light of the appeal
       from that final order, and the appellants’ request to proceed in a
       single appeal, this appeal is DISMISSED as duplicative, and any
       challenge to the orders designated in this appeal may be raised in
       Appeal No. 23-10916.
             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.