Court Opinion

ID: 9949921
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-12 20:01:03.504057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:34:42.961804
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-14178   Document: 18-1    Date Filed: 03/12/2024   Page: 1 of 3

                                             [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-14178
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       MARK T. STINSON,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       JOHN P. YATES,
       Warden,
       BLAIR,
       Camp Unit Manager,
       RANDLE,
       Lt.,
       RENDON,
       Camp Counsel,
       CRAWFORD,
USCA11 Case: 23-14178       Document: 18-1      Date Filed: 03/12/2024      Page: 2 of 3

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   23-14178

       Oﬃcer,

                                                       Defendants-Appellees.

                             ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Southern District of Florida
                     D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-24750-RAR
                           ____________________

       Before NEWSOM, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Mark Stinson appeals from the district court’s order trans-
       ferring his case to the Eastern District of Arkansas, but that order is
       not appealable. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (providing that a district
       court may transfer a case if venue is lacking in the district court in
       which the case was filed); Stelly v. Emps. Nat’l Ins. Co., 431 F.2d 1251,
       1253 (5th Cir. 1970) (holding that an order transferring a case under
       28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) is interlocutory and non-appealable); Middle-
       brooks v. Smith, 735 F.2d 431, 433 (11th Cir. 1984) (explaining that a
       transfer order is not immediately appealable under the collateral
       order doctrine).
               Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack
       of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot. No pe-
       tition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing
USCA11 Case: 23-14178     Document: 18-1     Date Filed: 03/12/2024    Page: 3 of 3

       23-14178              Opinion of the Court                        3

       and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable
       rules.