Mark Stinson, Sr. v. FCC Forrest City Warden, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]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: 1 of 3

-- 1 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: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

24-10452 Opinion of the Court 3
Before NEWSOM , L UCK , and B RASHER , 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.
USCA11 Case: 24-10452 Document: 7-1 Date Filed: 04/24/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --