Mark Stinson, Sr. v. FCC Forrest City Warden

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: April 24, 2024
• Docket: 24-10452
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-10452 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10452 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

MARK T. STINSON, SR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus MARK YATES, et al.,

Defendants,

FCC FORREST CITY WARDEN, OFFICER BLAIR, LT. RANDLE, OFFICER RENDON, OFFICER CRAWFORD, USCA11 Case: 24-10452 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10452

BOP, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees,

JOHN T. FOWLKES, Federal Judge, DAMON KEITH GRIFFIN, Asst. U.S. Attorney, NATHAN PATRICK BROOKS U.S. DOJ, Tax Division, ARTHUR E. QUINN, Public Defender Trial Attorney, PATRICK E. STEGALL, Public Defender Court Appointed, et al.,

Consol Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-24688-RKA ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-10452 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 3 of 3

24-10452 Opinion of the Court 3

Before NEWSOM, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Mark Stinson, Sr., proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s order transferring his case to the Eastern District of Arkan- sas and the Western District of Tennessee and from the court’s pa- perless order striking his motion for reconsideration. We lack jurisdiction over the transfer order because it was entered based on a lack of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and such orders are interlocutory and non-appealable. Middlebrooks v. Smith, 735 F.2d 431, 432-33 (11th Cir. 1984); Stelly v. Emps. Nat’l Ins. Co., 431 F.2d 1251, 1253 (5th Cir. 1970). Additionally, we lack jurisdic- tion over the court’s paperless order striking Stinson’s motion for reconsideration because it is not final, given that he can still pursue his claims in the Eastern District of Arkansas and the Western Dis- trict of Tennessee, and it is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it can be effectively reviewed on appeal from a final judgment. CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000); Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1245-46 (11th Cir. 2012); Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014). No petition for rehearing may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 40-3 and all other applicable rules.