11th Circuit dismissed a Florida prisoner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because he appealed a…
Marco Cadejuste v. REP
Status and record
Your position
Do you support this decision?
An advisory read. Your position on a ruling is citizen opinion; it does not form a citizen mandate and is never a legal appeal.
Civitus citizens
Take a position above to see how verified Civitus citizens are weighing in. Positions stay sealed until you have one of your own.
The Civitus brief
AI analysis
Plain English
11th Circuit dismissed a Florida prisoner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction because he appealed a non-final court order before any final judgment existed.
Why it matters
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Marco Cadejuste's appeal because the court order he tried to appeal was not a final decision and did not qualify under any exception allowing early appeals. The March 10 order from the district court did not end the case but instead directed Cadejuste to file an amended complaint, meaning further proceedings were still expected. Because Cadejuste filed his notice of appeal before the district court ever entered a final judgment, the appellate court had no authority to hear the case.
Who it affects
This ruling directly affects Marco Cadejuste, who must pursue any challenge through a properly timed appeal of the final judgment. More broadly, it serves as a reminder for self-represented litigants that appellate courts cannot hear appeals of orders that are not yet final or that were entered before a notice of appeal was filed.
What happens next
Current
Decision issued Jul 13, 2026
Unpublished opinion
Next
Possible rehearing
Parties can ask the same court to reconsider. Then: possible supreme court petition.
View possible path
- Decision issued Jul 13, 2026Unpublished opinion
- Possible rehearingParties can ask the same court to reconsider.
- Possible Supreme Court petitionThe Supreme Court takes only a small share of petitions.
Citizens vs Court
Civitus citizens
Sealed
Take a counted position to open the tally.
Appellate court
Decision issued
Jul 13, 2026 · Unpublished opinion
Take a position above to open the comparison.
A comparison of public sentiment with the ruling. Courts are not subject to a citizen mandate, and judges are not elected representatives.
Take action
Courts decide cases; Congress can respond with legislation. Telling your representative is the civic lever here.
Public discussion
Add a tag
Citizen opinion on this ruling, not a rehearing of the case. Similar opinions on this case can open a solution poll.
3 similar opinions open a solution poll
Loading opinions
Deeper context
Long-form analysis, legal background, and source material
Read analysisAnalysis · Source
DEEPER READ
Marco Cadejuste, a Florida state prisoner representing himself, filed a federal lawsuit against several state prison officials alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He sought injunctive relief. A magistrate judge issued an order on March 10, 2026 denying his initial motion and directing him to file an amended complaint or face dismissal. Cadejuste then filed a document that the district court treated as a notice of appeal of that March 10 order. The Eleventh Circuit explained that federal appellate courts generally have jurisdiction only over final decisions, meaning decisions that fully end a case on the merits. The March 10 order was not final because it did not resolve any of Cadejuste's claims and actually anticipated more proceedings by telling him to file an amended complaint. The court also concluded the order did not qualify under the collateral order doctrine, a narrow exception that allows appeals of certain interlocutory orders, because the issues were not completely separate from the merits and could be reviewed later in a normal appeal. The court further noted that by the time of the appeal, the district court had already adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation and dismissed the entire case without prejudice. Because the case was fully dismissed, the earlier denial of injunctive relief merged into that final judgment. However, Cadejuste's notice of appeal was filed before that final judgment existed, making it ineffective to challenge the judgment. A notice of appeal filed before a judgment is announced or entered cannot reach a judgment that did not yet exist at the time of filing. With no valid basis for jurisdiction, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal on its own initiative, without any party requesting dismissal. All pending motions were denied as moot. The court did not reach the underlying constitutional claims. There was no dissent noted in the opinion, which was issued per curiam, meaning it was attributed to the panel as a whole rather than a named author.
CITATION AND RECORD
Record source: CourtListener
USCA11 Case: 26-11484 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-11484 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ MARCO T. CADEJUSTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus REP, Sec, S. MILIKEN, Indiv & Official Capacity, A. COCHRAN, Secretary FDOC Representative, A. JOHNS, Secretary FDOC Representative, P. PADGHAM, Defendants-Appellees. USCA11 Case: 26-11484 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 26-11484 ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 4:26-cv-00027-MW-MAF ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and LUCK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Marco Cadejuste, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a motion seeking various forms of injunctive relief and initiat- ing this case. A magistrate judge directed Cadejuste to properly file a complaint instead of a motion. Cadejuste then filed a complaint alleging that the defendants, various state prison officials, violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights and seeking injunctive relief. On March 10, 2026, the magistrate judge entered an order denying Cadejuste’s motion, directing Cadejuste to either submit an amended complaint or voluntarily dismiss the case, and warning him that failure to comply could result in dismissal of his case. Cadejuste filed a writ of certiorari that the district court con- strued as a notice of appeal. Liberally construed, the notice desig- nates the March 10 order. The magistrate judge then issued a report and recommen- dation (“R&R”) recommending that the district court dismiss the amended complaint, which the district court adopted. The district court thus dismissed without prejudice Cadejuste’s amended com- plaint and entered judgment. USCA11 Case: 26-11484 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026 Page: 3 of 4 26-11484 Opinion of the Court 3 Because the March 10 order was not a final decision or ap- pealable under the collateral order doctrine, we lack jurisdiction to review it. The order was not final because it did not dispose of any of Cadejuste’s claims and contemplated further proceedings on the merits by directing Cadejuste to file an amended complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (providing jurisdiction to review final decisions of the district courts); Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Mukamal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (“A final decision is typically one that ends the liti- gation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but ex- ecute its judgment.” (quotation marks omitted)); Freyre v. Chronis- ter, 910 F.3d 1371, 1377 (11th Cir. 2018) (explaining that a district court order which “contemplates further substantive proceedings in a case is not final and appealable”). The interlocutory order is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it did not resolve an issue completely separate from the merits and is ef- fectively reviewable on appeal from the final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247, 1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014). Further, because the district court has now adopted the R&R and dismissed the case, the portions of the March 10 order that denied injunctive relief have now merged into the final judg- ment and are reviewable only in an appeal from that judgment. See 28 U.S.C § 1292(a)(1) (stating that orders granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dis- solve or modify injunctions are immediately appealable). But see Shaffer v. Carter, 252 U.S. 37, 44 (1920) (dismissing appeal from the denial of a temporary injunction where the court below also dis- USCA11 Case: 26-11484 Document: 13-1 Date Filed: 07/13/2026 Page: 4 of 4 4 Opinion of the Court 26-11484 missed the case in its entirety because “the denial of the interlocu- tory application [] merged in the final decree”), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Comptroller of Treasury of Md. v. Wynne, 575 U.S. 542 (2015). Cadejuste’s construed notice of appeal is ineffec- tive to challenge the judgment because he filed it prior to the dis- trict court announcing or entering its judgment. See Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th Cir. 1998) (ex- plaining that a notice of appeal is ineffective to appeal a contem- plated future order or judgment that does not exist at the time the notice of appeal is filed unless the decision or order was already announced); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(2) (“A notice of appeal filed after the court announces a decision or order—but before the entry of the judgment or order—is treated as filed on the date of and after the entry.”). Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are DENIED as moot.
Sources
- Official opinionPrimary record
Public record. Timeline facts only; no accusation of wrongdoing. Advisory citizen opinion does not form a citizen mandate.