Eliu Lorenzana-Cordon v. Lammer

D.C. Circuit

Eliu Lorenzana-Cordon v. Lammer

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 2, 2025

Docket25-7069

StatusUnpublished

This text of Eliu Lorenzana-Cordon v. Lammer (Eliu Lorenzana-Cordon v. Lammer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eliu Lorenzana-Cordon v. Lammer, (D.C. Cir. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-7069 September Term, 2025 1:24-cv-02471-CKK Filed On: October 2, 2025 Eliu Elixander Lorenzana-Cordon,

Appellant

v.

Lammer, (Warden),

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Walker, Childs, and Pan, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the petition for writ of mandamus, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the petition for writ of mandamus be denied. The district court’s April 9, 2025, order denying appellant’s motion to transfer is not a final appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and is not otherwise appealable prior to entry of final judgment. See Ukiah Adventist Hosp. v. FTC, 981 F.2d 543, 546-48 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“As a general principle, it is well settled that transfer orders are not appealable final orders.”). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. And because a petition for writ of mandamus may not be used as a substitute for the appeal procedure prescribed by statute, In re Flynn, 973 F.3d 74, 78 (D.C. Cir. 2020), mandamus relief is not available.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-7069 September Term, 2025

FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-7069 September Term, 2025 1:24-cv-02471-CKK Filed On: October 2, 2025 Eliu Elixander Lorenzana-Cordon,

Appellant

v.

Lammer, (Warden),

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Walker, Childs, and Pan, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, and the petition for writ of mandamus, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the appeal be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the petition for writ of mandamus be denied. The district court’s April 9, 2025, order denying appellant’s motion to transfer is not a final appealable decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and is not otherwise appealable prior to entry of final judgment. See Ukiah Adventist Hosp. v. FTC, 981 F.2d 543, 546-48 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (“As a general principle, it is well settled that transfer orders are not appealable final orders.”). Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. And because a petition for writ of mandamus may not be used as a substitute for the appeal procedure prescribed by statute, In re Flynn, 973 F.3d 74, 78 (D.C. Cir. 2020), mandamus relief is not available.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 25-7069 September Term, 2025

FOR THE COURT: Clifton B. Cislak, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Page 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Eliu Lorenzana-Cordon v. Lammer, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eliu-lorenzana-cordon-v-lammer-cadc-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack