Edson Gelin v. USA

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-14106
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
EDSON GELIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket Nos. 6:21-cv-01658-CEM-LHP,
6:17-cr-00131-CEM-LHP-3
USCA11 Case: 23-14106 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-14106
____________________
Before W ILSON , N EWSOM, and L AGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon our review of the record and the parties’ responses to
the jurisdictional questions, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
Edson Gelin appeals from the district court’s order denying
his “Omnibus Motion to Extend Time to File Attached Motion to
Arrest Judgment for Lack of Jurisdiction” and his “Motion for Relief
from Judgment or Order and Reconsideration of Motion for Dis-
covery.” We conclude that those motions form part of the civil
proceeding created by the filing of Gelin’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion
to vacate his sentence. See United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628
(11th Cir. 1990) (providing that filing a § 2255 motion is akin to in-
itiating an independent civil suit, and § 2255 proceedings are
treated as civil proceedings). Gelin filed the motions on the civil
§ 2255 docket, and the motions raise arguments that Gelin also pre-
sents in his § 2255 motion. Additionally, Gelin further indicated in
his response to the jurisdictional questions that the motions en-
compassed his § 2255 motion.
As a result, the district court’s order is not final or immedi-
ately appealable. The order is not a final decision that ended the
litigation on the merits because Gelin’s § 2255 motion is still pend-
ing before the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd.
v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022). And the order is not
USCA11 Case: 23-14106 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

23-14106 Opinion of the Court 3
immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine be-
cause it is neither completely separate from the merits of Gelin’s
§ 2255 motion nor effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final
judgment resolving the § 2255 motion. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744
F.3d 1247, 1252–53 (11th Cir. 2014) (providing that a non-final or-
der may be appealed if it, inter alia, resolves an important issue
completely separate from the merits of the action and would be
effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment).
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic-
tion. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
USCA11 Case: 23-14106 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --