William Kendall v. Captain Feneche

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: January 10, 2025
• Docket: 24-13449
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-13449 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-13449 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

WILLIAM KENDALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus J.P. CARNER, et al.,

Defendants,

CAPTAIN FENECHE, ( John Doe), OFFICER GARZA, ( John Doe), USCA11 Case: 24-13449 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13449

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:24-cv-00433-JLB-KCD ____________________

Before JORDAN, BRANCH, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: William Kendall, pro se, appeals from the district court’s Sep- tember 19, 2024 order dismissing his claims against three of the de- fendants. The district court’s order was not final and appealable however, because it did not end the proceedings on the merits. 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 liti- gation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but ex- ecute its judgment). Kendall’s claims against defendants Garza and Feneche re- main pending before the district court, and the court did not certify its September 19 order for immediate review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d 1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that dis- poses of fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not immediately appealable absent certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)). Nor is the district court’s September 19 order effectively USCA11 Case: 24-13449 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 01/10/2025 Page: 3 of 3

24-13449 Opinion of the Court 3

unreviewable on appeal from a final order resolving the case on the merits. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not conclude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doctrine if it, inter alia, is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment”). 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.