USCA11 Case: 25-12072 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 08/06/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-12072 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

ANTONIO AUSTIN HANER, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus ANNA MARIE HOMMINGA, In Her Individual Capacity, CITY OF PHOENIX, A Municipal Entity, BRADY ASSOCIATE, In His Individual Capacity, UNNAMED AGENCIES, 1-5, JOHN DOES, USCA11 Case: 25-12072 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 08/06/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12072

1-10,

Defendants-Appellees.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:25-cv-00629-TKW-HTC ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: This appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdic- tion. Antonio Haner, Jr., proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order transferring his case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and its order denying his motion for reconsideration of the transfer. We lack jurisdiction over Haner’s appeal because neither the district court’s transfer order nor its denial of Haner’s motion for reconsideration, which did not end the litigation on the merits, are final, appealable orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that appel- late jurisdiction is generally limited to “final decisions of the district courts”); CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that final orders generally end litigation on the merits); Middlebrooks v. Smith, 735 F.2d 431, 432-33 (11th Cir. USCA11 Case: 25-12072 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 08/06/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-12072 Opinion of the Court 3

1984) (holding that an order transferring a case under § 1404(a) is interlocutory and non-appealable). Further, neither order is ap- pealable now under the collateral order doctrine because they are not effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014); Mid- dlebrooks, 735 F.2d at 433 (explaining that transfer orders do not fall within the collateral order doctrine). All pending motions are DENIED as moot.