Tracey Brown v. Neil Gordon

USCA11 Case: 23-13542 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-13542 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

In re: TRACEY E. BROWN,

Debtor. ___________________________________ TRACEY E. BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant, versus NEIL C. GORDON, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Tracy E. Brown,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

D.C. Docket No. 1:23-cv-03950-LMM ____________________

Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

USCA11 Case: 23-13542 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 23-13542 PER CURIAM:

In 2023, Appellant Tracey E. Brown, proceeding pro se, ap- pealed to the district court the bankruptcy court’s order requiring her to turn over her residence (the “Property”) to the Chapter 7 trustee, Appellee Neil C. Gordon (“Trustee”), for liquidation. The district court denied Brown’s motions to stay the bankruptcy court’s order pending appeal, to enjoin her imminent eviction from the Property, and to stay those district court rulings pending appeal to this Court. Brown filed an initial and amended notice of appeal, in which she did not identify which of the three rulings she sought to appeal. After she filed her appeal, Brown was removed from the Property in late 2023, and, with the bankruptcy court’s approval, Trustee sold the Property in early 2024.

We asked the parties to address what district court decision or decisions the notices of appeal evince an intent to appeal from, as well as the nature of our jurisdiction to review the order. We also asked whether the appeal is now moot. Trustee responds that the appeal is taken from the order denying Brown’s motion to stay the bankruptcy court’s order, which is neither final nor immedi- ately appealable, and that the appeal is moot. Brown did not re- spond. We conclude that the appeal is moot, so we lack appellate jurisdiction.

All three district court orders denied motions that, at bot- tom, sought to stay the bankruptcy-court-ordered Property turno- ver pending appeal and prevent Brown’s eviction from the Prop-

USCA11 Case: 23-13542 Document: 45-1 Date Filed: 08/20/2026 Page: 3 of 3 23-13542 Opinion of the Court 3 erty. We accordingly lack jurisdiction to review any of those or- ders because, during the pendency of this appeal, the Property turnover occurred, Brown was evicted from the Property, and the Property was sold. There is thus no live controversy as to the dis- trict court’s rulings. See Christian Coal. of Fla., Inc. v. United States, 662 F.3d 1182, 1189 (11th Cir. 2011) (explaining that we lack juris- diction when there is not a live controversy for which we can grant meaningful relief); Al Najjar v. Ashcroft, 273 F.3d 1330, 1336 (11th Cir. 2001) (explaining that an appeal can become moot by reason of intervening events).

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdic- tion. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.