USCA11 Case: 24-11075 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2025 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-11075 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

WILLIAM L. GREEN, MYA R. GREEN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus U.S. DOJ OFFICE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S. DOJ CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS OFFICE SEATTLE, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 24-11075 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2025 Page: 2 of 5

2 Opinion of the Court 24-11075

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 5:23-cv-00062-MMH-PRL ____________________

Before ABUDU, KIDD, and WILSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Mya and William Green, proceeding pro se, appeal the dis- missal of their civil complaint and the denial of their post-judgment motions. 1 They contend that the defendants—various federal gov- ernment agencies, federal courts, and other unknown individu- als—engaged in a fraudulent scheme in litigation in the district court and in prior litigation in the Ninth Circuit and the Western District of Washington. 2 We review a district court’s order granting a motion to dis- miss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction de novo, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Parise v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 141 F.3d 1463, 1465 (11th Cir. 1998). “The burden for estab- lishing federal subject matter jurisdiction rests with the party

1 Green v. U.S. DOJ Off. of Pro. Resp., No. 5:23-cv-62, 2023 WL 5336761 (M.D.

Fla. Aug. 18, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, Green v. United States Dep’t of Justice Off. of Pro. Resp, 2023 WL 6439575 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2023). 2 We write for the parties, so we do not summarize the procedural history of

the Greens’ prior litigation. USCA11 Case: 24-11075 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2025 Page: 3 of 5

24-11075 Opinion of the Court 3

bringing the claim.” Sweet Pea Marine, Ltd. v. APJ Marine, Inc., 411 F.3d 1242, 1247 (11th Cir. 2005). We address each of the district court’s reasons for dismissing the suit in turn. First, the magistrate judge concluded that the district court did not have jurisdiction to review the final orders of other district courts or orders of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. “The dis- trict courts . . . have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction to review the decisions of the district courts of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, and we gener- ally lack jurisdiction to review final decisions by district courts en- compassed by other courts of appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1); Roof- ing & Sheet Metal Servs, Inc. v. LaQuinta Motor Inns, Inc., 689 F.2d 982, 986–87 (11th Cir. 1982); In re Corrugated Container Anti-Trust Litig., 620 F.2d 1086, 1090 (5th Cir. 1980). 3 District courts similarly lack jurisdiction to review the orders of other district courts or any orders of Courts of Appeals. Therefore, to the extent the Greens asked the Middle District of Florida to engage in such review in their complaint, the magistrate judge and the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Second, the magistrate judge concluded that the defendants had judicial immunity or sovereign immunity to the extent the Greens sought to raise new claims separate from the Ninth Circuit

3 Decisions of the Fifth Circuit issued prior to the close of business on Septem-

ber 30, 1981, are “binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit.” Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc). USCA11 Case: 24-11075 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2025 Page: 4 of 5

4 Opinion of the Court 24-11075

proceedings. “Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.” F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). As part of the judicial branch of the federal government, federal courts are also shielded by sovereign immun- ity. See id. “Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature,” and without a waiver of that immunity, the district court lacks “‘juris- diction to entertain the suit.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941)). Additionally, “[a] judge enjoys absolute immunity from suit for judicial acts performed within the jurisdic- tion of his court.” McCullough v. Finley, 907 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2018); see Dykes v. Hosemann, 776 F.2d 942, 945 (11th Cir. 1985) (en banc). We construe pro se pleadings and briefs liberally. See Wright v. Newsome, 795 F.2d 964, 967 (11th Cir. 1986); Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014). However, we will not “serve as de facto counsel for a party, or . . . rewrite an otherwise deficient pleading in order to sustain an action,” Campbell, 760 F.3d at 1168–69 (citation omitted), and pro se parties must comply with procedural rules, see Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 829 (11th Cir. 2007). When a party fails to properly brief an issue, we consider that issue abandoned. Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). In order to properly brief an issue, a party must “plainly and prominently” raise it and cannot merely “make[] only passing references to it or raise[] it in a perfunctory manner without sup- porting arguments and authority.” Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014) (quotation and citation omit- ted). While we may consider abandoned issues in certain USCA11 Case: 24-11075 Document: 88-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2025 Page: 5 of 5

24-11075 Opinion of the Court 5

extraordinary circumstances, we do so infrequently. See United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc) After careful review of the Greens’ briefs on appeal, we con- clude that they have abandoned any challenge to the district court’s decision to dismiss the case on immunity grounds. They do not plainly argue that sovereign immunity, res judicata, nor judicial im- munity do not apply, or why the district court erred in these re- spects. Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681. We also do not see any error in the district court’s conclusions on these issues. Nor do we discern an abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the Greens’ post-judgment motions, which repackaged arguments previously rejected. See Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (explaining that “[a] motion for reconsideration cannot be used to relitigate old matters” (citation and quotation marks omitted)). For these reasons, we decline to disturb the district court’s well-reasoned orders. AFFIRMED.4

4 The Greens move for certification of a question of federal law to the United

States Supreme Court. This is a very rare and extraordinary procedure, see In re Hill, 777 F.3d 1214, 1225–26 (11th Cir. 2015), Wisniewski v. United States, 353 U.S. 901, 902 (1957), and we see no extraordinary issues present here that warrant its utilization. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED. The Greens’ re- quest for reassignment on remand is DENIED AS MOOT in light of our affir- mance. See Druid Hills Civic Ass’n v. Fed. Highway Admin., 833 F.2d 1545, 1551 (11th Cir. 1987). Finally, the Greens address whether their suit was dismissed with prejudice in their briefs. We clarify that the Greens’ suit was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, so the dismissal was without prejudice. See Dupree v. Owens, 92 F.4th 999, 1008 (11th Cir. 2024).