Clive Richards v. Fulton County Government

USCA11 Case: 25-14311 Document: 13-2 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 1 of 2

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-14311 ____________________ CLIVE RICHARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus FULTON COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:25-cv-05086-ELR ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT: Clive Richards, pro se, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging due process violations. On October 16, 2025, the district court entered judgment dismissing Richards’s complaint. On November 5, 2025, the district court entered a letter order, signed USCA11 Case: 25-14311 Document: 13-2 Date Filed: 06/01/2026 Page: 2 of 2

2 Order of the Court 25-14311 by the district judge, denying Richards’s request to waive PACER fees. On December 8, 2025, Richards filed a notice of appeal.

A jurisdictional question (“JQ”) asked the parties to address whether Richards’s notice of appeal was timely, particularly as to the November 5 letter order.

Upon review of the record and the response to the JQ, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the October 16 judgment. Richards had until November 17 to appeal that judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). His notice of appeal, filed on December 8, 2025, is thus untimely and cannot invoke our appellate jurisdiction. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED in part as to the district court’s October 16 judgment.

We CARRY WITH THE CASE the issue of whether Richards’s notice of appeal was timely to appeal from the district court’s November 5, 2025 letter order. A final determination regarding this jurisdictional issue will be made by the panel to whom this case is submitted after briefing on the merits is completed. In their merits briefs, the parties are not required to discuss the jurisdictional issue in great detail, but they may address it as they deem necessary or appropriate.