USCA11 Case: 25-12182 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-12182 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

JESSIE LEE BIZZELL, Petitioner-Appellant, versus

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents-Appellees. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:19-cv-02434-PGB-UAM ____________________

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jessie Lee Bizzell, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 13, 2022, USCA11 Case: 25-12182 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-12182

the district court entered an order and judgment denying Bizzell’s habeas petition and a certificate of appealability (“COA”). Bizzell timely appealed, but we ultimately dismissed that appeal for want of prosecution in 2023. Since then, Bizzell has filed in the district court several mo- tions for a COA and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. The district court has denied all those motions. In June 2025, Bizzell mailed to us a notice of appeal that asks us for a COA and leave to proceed IFP, which created the instant appeal. We liberally construe that notice of appeal as challenging the April 13, 2022 final order and judgment and the district court’s denials of a COA and leave to proceed IFP. See Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165, 1168 (11th Cir. 2014) (holding that pro se filings are liberally construed). We lack jurisdiction to review the final order and judgment because the June 2025 notice of appeal is untimely as to that order and judgment. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300-02 (11th Cir. 2010) (explaining that a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered if there is not a federal party). Without a timely appeal from the judgment, we cannot review Bizzell’s request for a COA. See 11th Cir. R. 22-1; Green, 606 F.3d at 1300. We also lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s postjudgment orders denying a COA and leave to proceed IFP on USCA11 Case: 25-12182 Document: 12-1 Date Filed: 12/11/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-12182 Opinion of the Court 3

appeal because such rulings are not final, appealable decisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The proper procedure to challenge such rulings is to file in the appellate court, in a timely appeal from a final deci- sion in a habeas action, a motion for COA or to proceed IFP on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(5); Gomez v. United States, 245 F.2d 346, 347 (5th Cir. 1957) (IFP orders); Pruitt v. United States, 274 F.3d 1315, 1319 (11th Cir. 2001) (COA orders); 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083, 1084 (11th Cir. 1997); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as MOOT.