Henry McKinnon, III v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedFebruary 6, 2026
Docket25-12901
StatusUnpublished

This text of Henry McKinnon, III v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Henry McKinnon, III v. Secretary, Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Henry McKinnon, III v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, (11th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 25-12901 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 02/06/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12901 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

HENRY OLIVER MCKINNON, III, Petitioner-Appellant, versus

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:24-cv-00783-MMH-PDB ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Henry Oliver McKinnon, III, a prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s August 11, 2025, order denying his USCA11 Case: 25-12901 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 02/06/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12901

motion to consolidate this 28 U.S.C. § 2554 action with his separate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. McKinnon’s appeal is not taken from a final decision because the order did not resolve his § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (“The courts of appeals . . . have jurisdiction . . . [over] all final de- cisions of the district courts.”); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (explaining that a rul- ing that disposes of fewer than all claims is not final); NAACP of La. v. Michot, 480 F.2d 547, 548 (5th Cir. 1973) (“An order denying con- solidation is not a final appealable order.”). The order also is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine be- cause it would be effectively reviewable on appeal from a final de- cision. See Acheron Capital, Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 989 (11th Cir. 2022) (describing the doctrine’s requirements). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Henry McKinnon, III v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henry-mckinnon-iii-v-secretary-department-of-corrections-ca11-2026.