USCA11 Case: 25-11779 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2025 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-11779 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

DALTON D. BANKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

DONNA K. LAMONS, et al., Defendants, TAMMY BROWN, Honorable, Judge, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT OF CULLMAN COUNTY, ALABAMA, Defendants-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 6:25-cv-00132-ACA ____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-11779 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-11779

Before BRANCH, LUCK, and KIDD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Dalton D. Banks, pro se, appeals from the district court’s or- der staying this action pending rulings on the defendants’ motions to dismiss. The defendants move to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that the district court’s order is not interlocu- torily appealable. In response, Banks contends that the order is ap- pealable as an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Appellate jurisdiction is generally limited to “final decisions of the district courts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Generally, an order stay- ing an action is not final under § 1291 for purposes of appeal. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stone, 743 F.2d 1519, 1522-23 (11th Cir. 1984). In determining the extent to which a plaintiff is “effectively out of court,” we have held that a stay order that is “immoderate and in- volves a protracted and indefinite period of delay” is final and ap- pealable under § 1291. King v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 505 F.3d 1160, 1165-66 (11th Cir. 2007). In analyzing whether a stay is final, we balance the inconvenience and cost of piecemeal review against the danger of denying justice by delay. CTI-Container Leasing Corp. v. Uiterwyk Corp., 685 F.2d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1982). “An order by a federal court that relates only to the conduct or progress of litiga- tion before that court ordinarily is not considered an injunction and therefore is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1).” Gulfstream Aero- space Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 279 (1988). Here, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal because the dis- trict court’s order is not final and is not appealable as an injunction. USCA11 Case: 25-11779 Document: 29-1 Date Filed: 10/16/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-11779 Opinion of the Court 3

The order is not final because it does not involve a “protracted and indefinite period of delay,” as it limits the duration of the stay to the period prior to the district court ruling on the pending motions to dismiss. See King, 505 F.3d at 1165-66; 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Nor is it appealable as an injunction, as it “relates only to the conduct or progress of litigation before [the district] court.” See Gulfstream, 485 U.S. at 279; 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Accordingly, we GRANT the motion to dismiss and dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.