USCA11 Case: 25-13378 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-13378 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

ALFREDO BLESS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus

SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants, MS. KING, Director of Nursing, MS. COTTON, SELENA MONTEMURRO, C.N.A., POWELL, (D.O.N.) Nurse, Shepherd, (F.D.C.) Sergeant, et al., Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 25-13378 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 25-13378

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 3:24-cv-00085-TJC-LLL ____________________

Before BRANCH, GRANT, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Alfredo Bless, pro se, filed a notice of appeal that, liberally construed, challenges the district court’s: (1) January 22, 2025 judg- ment dismissing his case; and (2) September 5, 2025 order denying his postjudgment motion, which the district court construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. See Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that we liberally construe pro se filings). The notice of appeal, which is deemed filed on September 22, 2025, under the prison mailbox rule, is untimely to appeal the January 22 judgment, as the 30-day statutory time limit re- quired Bless to file a notice of appeal challenging the judgment by February 21, 2025. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) (providing that, in civil cases where there is not a federal party, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment ap- pealed from); Jeffries v. United States, 748 F.3d 1310, 1314 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that, under the prison mailbox rule, a pro se pris- oner’s court filings are deemed filed on the date he delivers them to prison authorities for mailing and if that date is not known, and there is not contrary evidence, we assume he delivered the filing USCA11 Case: 25-13378 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Page: 3 of 4

25-13378 Opinion of the Court 3

on the day that he signed it); Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1). His construed Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which is deemed filed on March 12 under the prison mailbox rule, did not toll the time to appeal, as it was not filed within 28 days of the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) (providing that a motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 must be filed within 28 days of the entry of the order or judg- ment to toll the time to appeal); Advanced Bodycare Sols., LLC v. Thoine Int’l, Inc., 615 F.3d 1352, 1359 n.15 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining that an untimely Rule 4(a)(4) motion does not toll the time to appeal). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over Bless’s appeal of the January 22 judgment. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining that the timely fil- ing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional require- ment). As to Bless’s appeal of the September 5 order, he appealed the order in a separate notice of appeal dated September 14, and that appeal is pending in appeal number 25-13420. He is not enti- tled to two appeals from the September 5 order. See United States v. Arlt, 567 F.2d 1295, 1296-97 (5th Cir. 1978) (explaining that an appellant “is not entitled to two appeals” from the same judgment); I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1551-52 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining that federal courts may use their inherent ad- ministrative power to dismiss duplicative litigation and avoid wast- ing judicial resources). USCA11 Case: 25-13378 Document: 14-1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Page: 4 of 4

4 Opinion of the Court 25-13378

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion as to the January 22 judgment and as duplicative as to the Sep- tember 5 order.