Walter Pettaway v. Nicholas D. Barber

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: January 17, 2025
• Docket: 24-13617
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-13617 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-13617 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

WALTER PETTAWAY, as Administrator of the Estate of Joseph Lee Pettaway, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ERNEST N. FINLEY, JR., et al., Police Chief of the City of Montgomery, in his official and individual capacities,

Defendants, USCA11 Case: 24-13617 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13617

NICHOLAS D. BARBER, ERNEST N. FINLEY, THE CITY OF MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:19-cv-00008-ECM-JTA ____________________

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Walter Pettaway appeals from the district court’s January 31, 2023 order granting in part the defendant’s motion for sum- mary judgment. The district court’s order was not final and ap- pealable, however, because it did not end the litigation on the mer- its. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that an appealable final order ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment). Pettaway’s excessive force claim against defendant Nicholas Barber remains pending in this action, as the district court has not resolved it and the parties have moved to dismiss Barber’s pending interlocutory appeal regarding that claim. See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, USCA11 Case: 24-13617 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 01/17/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-13617 Opinion of the Court 3

1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that an order that disposes of fewer than all claims against all parties to a civil action is not final or im- mediately appealable absent certification by the district court pur- suant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b)). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. 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.