U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 2026

Donald Goins v. Secretary Department of Corrections

Donald Goins v. Secretary Department of Corrections
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided August 11, 2026
Donald Goins v. Secretary Department of Corrections

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 26-10852 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2026 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________ No. 26-10852 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

DONALD GOINS,

Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida

D.C. Docket No. 3:23-cv-00346-WWB-SJH ____________________

Before JORDAN, JILL PRYOR, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Donald Goins, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that the district court denied in a final order and judgment entered on January 26,

USCA11 Case: 26-10852 Document: 10-1 Date Filed: 08/11/2026 Page: 2 of 2 2 Opinion of the Court 26-10852 2026. On March 9, 2026, Goins filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial.

Goins’s notice of appeal is untimely to challenge the district court’s January 26, 2026, final order and judgment. To timely seek review of the final judgment, Goins needed to file a notice of appeal by February 25, 2026. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) (providing that, in a civil case in which there is no federal party, a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the appealed order or judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (same). His notice of appeal, deemed filed on March 9, 2026, under the prison mailbox rule, is therefore un- timely, and we lack jurisdiction to review the final judgment. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2010) (ex- plaining that, in civil cases, the timely filing of a notice of appeal is a mandatory prerequisite to the exercise of appellate jurisdiction); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1).

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

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.