Adam C. Farney v. USA

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION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:

2

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 district court dismissed the complaint in an order and judgment entered on May 13, 2025, and entered an amended judgment on May 16, 2025. The district court denied Farney’s timely motion for reconsideration in an order entered on June 9, 2025. Farney filed a notice of appeal that we liberally construe as challenging those rulings . 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 reconsideration 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). Accordingly , 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

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 appellate jurisdiction). All pending motions are DENIED as moot.