Tabitha McKenzie v. Casey Barren, et al

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-10301
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
TABITHA MCKENZIE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHIEF JUDGE,
CASEY T. BARREN,
Lawyer For DCF,
LISA TANNER,
Case Manager,
Defendants-Appellees,
USCA11 Case: 24-10301 Document: 6-1 Date Filed: 03/22/2024 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10301
BRITTNEY BAXTER,
Case Manager,
Defendant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 4:23-cv-00470-WS-MJF
____________________
Before G RANT, B RASHER , and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
In these proceedings under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Tabitha
McKenzie appeals from the district court’s January 24, 2024 order
affirming a magistrate judge’s denial of her motion to appoint
counsel. The district court’s order was not final and appealable,
however, because it did not end the § 1983 proceedings 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).
McKenzie’s § 1983 complaint remains pending before the
district court, and the court did not certify its January 24 order for
immediate review under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). See
USCA11 Case: 24-10301 Document: 6-1 Date Filed: 03/22/2024 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

24-10301 Opinion of the Court 3
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 immediately appealable absent
certification pursuant to Rule 54(b)). Nor is the district court’s Jan-
uary 24 order effectively 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 collat-
eral order doctrine if it, inter alia, is “effectively unreviewable on
appeal from a final judgment”); Holt v. Ford, 862 F.2d 850, 851-54
(11th Cir. 1989) (en banc) (holding that an order denying the ap-
pointment of counsel in a § 1983 action is not immediately appeal-
able under the collateral order doctrine).
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.
USCA11 Case: 24-10301 Document: 6-1 Date Filed: 03/22/2024 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --