Michael Haspel, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appealed from a district court order that granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The underlying case involved claims against multiple defendants, including Centurion of Florida, LLC, and several nurses. The district court's order resolved some claims but left others unresolved, specifically those against three of the defendants. Haspel sought to appeal this partial order immediately, but the Eleventh Circuit determined it lacked the authority to hear the case at this stage.
The court reasoned that appellate jurisdiction is strictly limited to final judgments. A final judgment is one that leaves nothing for the district court to do but execute the judgment. Here, because Haspel's claims against three defendants remained pending, the district court's order was not final. The court cited CSX Transp., Inc. v. City of Garden City to explain that an order disposing of fewer than all claims is not final. Furthermore, the order was not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine, which requires a ruling to resolve a collateral issue completely separate from the merits and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment. The district court also failed to certify the order for immediate appeal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), which is the only mechanism allowing an immediate appeal from an order disposing of fewer than all claims in a multi-defendant case.
The appeal is dismissed without a decision on the merits of Haspel's claims. Haspel must wait until the district court resolves all claims against all defendants, or until the district court certifies the order under Rule 54(b), before he can appeal. This decision reinforces the strict application of the final judgment rule in the Eleventh Circuit, ensuring that piecemeal appeals do not disrupt the district court's proceedings.