James A. Williams v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 23-14154
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
JAMES A. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
SERVICES,
Defendant-Appellee.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 0:23-cv-61124-RKA
USCA11 Case: 23-14154 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2024 Page: 1 of 4

-- 1 of 4 --

2 Opinion of the Court 23-14154
____________________
Before R OSENBAUM , LUCK , AND BRASHER , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Upon review of the record, the parties’ responses to the ju-
risdictional question, and the government’s motion to dismiss this
appeal, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
James Williams appeals the district court’s orders staying discovery
pending the resolution of the government’s motion to dismiss his
amended complaint and dismissing his amended complaint with
leave to amend by December 21, 2023. On December 21, 2023, the
deadline to amend, Williams filed a second amended complaint
and a notice of appeal that designated the stay and dismissal orders.
The order dismissing Williams’s amended complaint is not
final because the district court granted leave to further amend and
did not dismiss the entire action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap.,
Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022); Czeremcha v. Int’l
Ass’n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, AFLCIO, 724 F.2d 1552,
1554 (11th Cir. 1984) (“[T]he dismissal [of the complaint] itself does
not automatically terminate the action unless the court holds either
that no amendment is possible or that the dismissal of the com-
plaint also constitutes a dismissal of the action.”). Indeed, Williams
filed a second amended complaint that is currently pending before
the district court. See Garfield v. NDC Health Corp., 466 F.3d 1255,
1260-61 (11th Cir. 2006) (providing that an order dismissing a com-
plaint with leave to amend becomes final when the time to amend
USCA11 Case: 23-14154 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2024 Page: 2 of 4

-- 2 of 4 --

23-14154 Opinion of the Court 3
expires or the plaintiff waives the right to amend by appealing be-
fore the time expires); Briehler v. City of Miami, 926 F.2d 1001, 1002
(11th Cir. 1991) (stating that a plaintiff must choose between “pur-
suing a permissive right to amend a complaint after dismissal or . .
. treating the order as final and filing for appeal” (quotation marks
omitted)). Additionally, that order is not immediately appealable
under the collateral order doctrine because it did not resolve an is-
sue separate from the merits of the action and would not be effec-
tively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Plaintiff
A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that
an order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doc-
trine if it: (1) conclusively determines the disputed question; (2) re-
solves an important issue completely separate from and collateral
to the merits of the action; and (3) would be effectively unreview-
able on appeal from the final judgment).
The district court’s order staying discovery pending the res-
olution of the government’s motion to dismiss is not final because
that order was limited in duration and there is no danger of denying
justice by delaying review given that the stay ceased once the dis-
trict court granted the motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Am. Mfrs. Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Stone, 743 F.2d 1519, 1522-23 (11th Cir. 1984) (noting that
a stay order is generally not final under § 1291); Moses H. Cone Mem’l
Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (holding that a
stay order is final and appealable if it puts the appellant “effectively
out of court”); King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160, 1165-66
(11th Cir. 2007) (noting that, in determining the extent to which a
plaintiff is “effectively out of court,” we have held that a stay order
USCA11 Case: 23-14154 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2024 Page: 3 of 4

-- 3 of 4 --

4 Opinion of the Court 23-14154
that is “immoderate and involves a protracted and indefinite period
of delay” is final and appealable under § 1291); CTI-Container Leas-
ing Corp. v. Uiterwyk Corp., 685 F.2d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1982) (not-
ing that, in analyzing whether a stay is final, we balance the incon-
venience and cost of piecemeal review against the danger of deny-
ing justice by delay). The stay order is also not appealable under
the collateral order doctrine because an order staying discovery
does not implicate a “substantial public interest or some particular
value of a high order.” See Mohawk Indus. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100,
107 (2009). Moreover, neither order that Williams challenges was
certified by the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Pro-
cedure 54(b). See Supreme Fuels Trading FZE v. Sargeant, 689 F.3d
1244, 1246 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting that an order that disposes of
fewer than all claims against all parties to an action is not final or
immediately appealable absent certification by the district court
pursuant to Rule 54(b)).
Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss is
GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
USCA11 Case: 23-14154 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 02/27/2024 Page: 4 of 4

-- 4 of 4 --