Justin Michael Rossi v. State of Florida

USCA11 Case: 26-11926 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 08/03/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________

No. 26-11926 Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

JUSTIN MICHAEL ROSSI,

Petitioner-Appellant, versus STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, FLORIDA STATE HOSPITAL,

Respondents-Appellees. ____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:26-cv-00121-AW-MJF

____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

USCA11 Case: 26-11926 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 08/03/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 26-11926

Justin Rossi, pro se, appeals from the magistrate judge’s or- ders denying his motions for appointment of counsel and a hearing, which were entered in his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus action.

We lack jurisdiction over this appeal because it is not taken from final or otherwise appealable orders. The orders Rossi chal- lenges are not final because they did not end the litigation on the merits, as Rossi’s § 2241 petition was still pending when he ap- pealed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; CSX Transp. Inc. v. City of Garden City, 235 F.3d 1325, 1327 (11th Cir. 2000) (explaining that a final judg- ment ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the district court to do but execute the judgment). Additionally, the orders are not appealable under the collateral order doctrine be- cause there is no indication that they would be effectively unre- viewable on appeal from the final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that an order is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine if it would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from the final judg- ment, among other things); Hodges v. Dep’t of Corr., 895 F.2d 1360, 1361 62 (11th Cir. 1990) (providing that the denial of a motion for appointment of counsel in a civil case is not immediately appeala- ble under the collateral order doctrine).

Furthermore, the district court’s later dismissal of Rossi’s § 2241 petition does not cure his premature appeal. See Robinson v. Tanner, 798 F.2d 1378, 1382-83 (11th Cir. 1986) (explaining that a subsequent final judgment cures a premature appeal only when the appeal is from an otherwise final order dismissing a claim or party).

USCA11 Case: 26-11926 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 08/03/2026 Page: 3 of 3 26-11926 Opinion of the Court 3

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.