Tamika Seay v. State of Georgia

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: October 24, 2024
• Docket: 24-12721
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-12721 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 10/24/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-12721 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

TAMIKA SEAY, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus STATE OF GEORGIA, ASHLEY STINSON,

Defendants- Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-01490-LMM ____________________ USCA11 Case: 24-12721 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 10/24/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12721

Before BRANCH, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Tamika Seay’s pro se notice of appeal may be reasonably con- strued as seeking to appeal from one or both of two orders, neither of which is appealable to us in this appeal. Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that pro se filings are liberally construed). First, to the extent that Seay seeks to appeal from an order of the state court resolving her October 1, 2020 motion for recon- sideration, we lack jurisdiction to review such an order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1) (providing jurisdiction to review decisions of fed- eral district courts within our territorial jurisdiction); Vasquez v. YII Shipping Co., 692 F.3d 1192, 1195 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that we lack jurisdiction to directly review state court decisions). Second, when considering Seay’s notice of appeal in con- junction with her appellate brief, her notice may be construed as seeking to appeal from the district court’s August 12, 2024 order dismissing her complaint in case number 1:24-mi-83. However, to the extent that Seay seeks to challenge that order, we lack jurisdic- tion to review it in this appeal, because that order was not entered in the civil case from which this appeal proceeds. Rather, Seay must pursue any challenge to that order in appeal number 24-12729, the appeal proceeding from case number 1:24-mi-83. USCA11 Case: 24-12721 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 10/24/2024 Page: 3 of 3

24-12721 Opinion of the Court 3

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.