Tiffany Harris v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

USCA11 Case: 23-11628 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2023 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 23-11628 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

TIFFANY HARRIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendant-Appellee, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, et al.,

Defendants. USCA11 Case: 23-11628 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2023 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 23-11628

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket Nos. 2:22-cv-00193-CLM,

2:22-cv-00194-CLM ____________________

Before WILSON, JILL PRYOR, and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. To the extent Tiffany Harris seeks to have her case trans- ferred from the district court to this Court, that request is im- proper. Our jurisdiction is generally limited to final decisions of the district courts, and the district court has not entered a final or- der resolving the litigation on the merits in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (stating that a final order ends litigation on the mer- its and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment). We also lack jurisdiction to the extent Harris seeks appellate review of the district court’s text order denying her motion to transfer venue. That order is not final because it did not end the litigation on the merits, and it is not immediately appealable under the col- lateral order doctrine because it is not effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not con- clude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order

USCA11 Case: 23-11628 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 06/09/2023 Page: 3 of 3 23-11628 Opinion of the Court 3 doctrine if, inter alia, it is “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment”).

All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT. 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.