Court Opinion

ID: 9404852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-26 16:01:12.048269+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:17.109452
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-11389      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 06/26/2023   Page: 1 of 3

                                                      [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                            ____________________

                                   No. 23-11389
                             Non-Argument Calendar
                            ____________________

       DEANDRE ARNOLD,
       on behalf of Tymya Arnold,
                                                         Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       CITY OF HAMPTON,
       WAYNE JERNIGAN,
       sued in his oﬃcial and individual capacity,
       OTANYA CLARKE
       STACY COLEY,
       DERRICK AUSTIN,
       sued in their oﬃcial and individual capacities, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 23-11389      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 06/26/2023   Page: 2 of 3

       2                      Opinion of the Court                23-11389

                                                     Defendants-Appellees,

       KIM STEPHENS,
       sued in her oﬃcial and individual capacity, et al.,

                                                               Defendants.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of Georgia
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-04970-SEG
                           ____________________

       Before WILSON, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic-
       tion. Deandre Arnold appeals from the district court’s March 16,
       2023 order granting motions to dismiss ﬁled by the City of Hamp-
       ton, Wayne Jernigan, Otanya Clarke, and Mellissa Brooks, and
       denying as moot Arnold’s motions for partial summary judgment
       and leave to ﬁle an amended statement of material facts. That or-
       der is not ﬁnal and appealable, however, because it did not end the
       litigation on the merits in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291;
       Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022)
USCA11 Case: 23-11389      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 06/26/2023     Page: 3 of 3

       23-11389               Opinion of the Court                          3

       (stating that a ﬁnal order ends the litigation on the merits and leaves
       nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment).
               Arnold’s claims against Stacy Coley; Derrick Austin; Denise
       Henderson; Brian Amero; Sabriya Hill; Lynn Chambers; Suzette
       Gray; Katy Snyder; Henry County, Georgia; Danna Yu; and
       Melinda O’Neill remain pending before the district court, and the
       district court did not certify its order for immediate review under
       Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading
       FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an
       order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties to an
       action is not immediately appealable absent certiﬁcation pursuant
       to Rule 54(b)). Additionally, the district court’s March 16, 2023 or-
       der is not eﬀectively unreviewable on appeal from a ﬁnal order re-
       solving the case on the merits. Plaintiﬀ A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247,
       1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not con-
       clude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doc-
       trine if it, inter alia, is “eﬀectively unreviewable 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.