Adam C. Farney v. USA

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: January 13, 2026
• Docket: 25-12889
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12889 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12889 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

ADAM C. FARNEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ALEXANDER JOHNSON, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:25-cv-00521-LC-HTC ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: USCA11 Case: 25-12889 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12889

Adam C. Farney, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against the United States and an individual. The dis- trict court dismissed the complaint in an order and judgment en- tered on May 13, 2025, and entered an amended judgment on May 16, 2025. The district court denied Farney’s timely motion for re- consideration in an order entered on June 9, 2025. Farney filed a notice of appeal that we liberally construe as challenging those rul- ings. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(7) (“An appeal must not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal . . . .”); Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278-80 (11th Cir. 2001) (explaining that we liberally construe the requirements of Rule 3); Carmichael v. United States, 966 F.3d 1250, 1258 (11th Cir. 2020) (explaining that we liberally construe pro se filings). Because Farney filed a motion that timely sought reconsid- eration of the district court’s amended judgment, his motion tolled the time to appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e); Finch v. City of Vernon, 845 F.2d 256, 258-59 (11th Cir. 1988). Ac- cordingly, Farney had until August 8, 2025, to file a notice of appeal challenging the amended judgment and the June 9 order denying reconsideration. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(i), (a)(4)(A). Farney’s notice—deemed filed on August 12, 2025, under the prison mailbox rule—is untimely. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b)(1); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(i), (c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 USCA11 Case: 25-12889 Document: 18-1 Date Filed: 01/13/2026 Page: 3 of 3

25-12889 Opinion of the Court 3

(11th Cir. 2010) (explaining that, in civil cases, the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory prerequisite to the exercise of ap- pellate jurisdiction). All pending motions are DENIED as moot.