USCA11 Case: 25-13454 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 12/08/2025 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13454 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

BEVERLY OWEN BARBER, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

JAVAN PATTON CRAYTON, Judge, in Her Individual Capacity Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 4:25-cv-01633-CLM ____________________

Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and GRANT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Beverly Barber, pro se, appeals from the district court’s Sep- tember 29, 2025 order denying her motion for a temporary USCA11 Case: 25-13454 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 12/08/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13454

restraining order (“TRO”). The district court’s order is not appeal- able under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, because it did not end the litigation on the merits. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing jurisdiction over “final decisions of the district courts”); Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (explaining that a final decision ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute its judgment). The district court’s order is also not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), because it did not deny a request for injunctive relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). Barber’s motion explicitly sought only a TRO, there was no notice or hearing associated with injunc- tive relief, and there is no indication that the court’s denial of a TRO resulted in irreparable harm. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1) (providing that a district court “may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party”); AT&T Broadband v. Tech Commc’ns, Inc., 381 F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that a TRO may be appealable under § 1292(a)(1) if, inter alia, “the notice and hearing sought or afforded suggest that the relief sought was a preliminary injunction”); Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir. 1995) (holding that the denial of a TRO may be immediately ap- pealable if it “might have a serious, perhaps irreparable, conse- quence”). The order is not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because Barber’s motion was not separate from the merits. Barber sought to stay the enforcement of a state court’s arrest warrant and order for attorney’s fees that were the subject of USCA11 Case: 25-13454 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 12/08/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-13454 Opinion of the Court 3

her complaint, and nothing suggests that the district court’s order will be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. See Acheron Cap., Ltd., 22 F.4th at 989 (explaining that the collateral order doctrine allows for appeal of a non-final order if it conclu- sively resolves an important issue completely separate from the merits of an action and would be effectively unreviewable later). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction.