William Merryman v. Town of Orange Park - Appeal of Non-Final Orders
Summary
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed William Merryman's appeal against the Town of Orange Park. The court found it lacked jurisdiction because the district court orders appealed were not final decisions and did not meet exceptions for interlocutory appeals. The case remains pending in the district court.
What changed
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed William Merryman's appeal concerning several district court orders, including denials of a temporary restraining order and motions for clarification, as well as a denial of electronic filing. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the appealed orders were not final decisions that ended the litigation on the merits. Furthermore, the orders did not qualify for interlocutory appeal under jurisprudential exceptions like the collateral order doctrine.
This ruling means the underlying case, Merryman's complaint against the Town of Orange Park and other defendants, will continue in the district court. Compliance officers should note that appeals of non-final orders are generally dismissed, and parties must await a final judgment to appeal most district court decisions. No specific compliance actions are required based on this opinion, as it pertains to procedural appellate jurisdiction rather than substantive legal requirements of the underlying case.
Source document (simplified)
Jump To
Support FLP
CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.
Please become a member today.
March 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note
William Merryman v. Town of Orange Park
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- Citations: None known
- Docket Number: 25-13654
- Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Nature of Suit: NEW
Combined Opinion
USCA11 Case: 25-13654 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 1 of 3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
No. 25-13654
Non-Argument Calendar
WILLIAM GREGORY MERRYMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TOWN OF ORANGE PARK,
WILLIAM WHITSON,
RANDY ANDERSON,
WINNETTE SANDLIN,
GLEN TAYLOR, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 3:25-cv-00730-MMH-MCR
Before BRANCH, LUCK, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
USCA11 Case: 25-13654 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 2 of 3
2 Opinion of the Court 25-13654
PER CURIAM:
William Merryman, pro se, appeals from the district court’s
September 17, 2025 order denying several of his motions, including
a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and two mo-
tions for clarification. He also appeals from the court’s October 6,
2025 order denying his request to submit filings electronically.
We lack jurisdiction over Merryman’s appeal because the
designated orders are not final or otherwise appealable. See 28
U.S.C. § 1291 (providing that appellate jurisdiction is generally lim-
ited to “final decisions of the district courts”); id. § 1292 (providing
that appellate jurisdiction includes specific interlocutory orders
made appealable by statue or jurisprudential exception). First, the
orders are not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because they did
not end the litigation on the merits, as Merryman’s complaint re-
mains pending in the district court. See Acheron Cap., Ltd. v. Muk-
amal, 22 F.4th 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2022) (providing that an appeala-
ble final order ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing
for the court to do but execute its judgment). Additionally, these
interlocutory orders are not appealable under the collateral order
doctrine because they are not effectively unreviewable on appeal
from a final judgment. See Plaintiff A v. Schair, 744 F.3d 1247,
1252-53 (11th Cir. 2014) (explaining that a ruling that does not con-
clude the litigation may be appealed under the collateral order doc-
trine if, among other things, it would effectively be unreviewable
on appeal from a final judgment).
USCA11 Case: 25-13654 Document: 23-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 3 of 3
25-13654 Opinion of the Court 3
Furthermore, the portion of the September 17, 2025 order
denying Merryman’s motion for a TRO is not appealable under 28
U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1) because it did not deny a request for injunctive
relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1); McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465,
1472 (11th Cir. 1986) (providing that the denial of a TRO is not ap-
pealable). Merryman explicitly sought a TRO, there was no notice
or hearing associated with the injunctive relief, and there was no
indication that the court’s denial of Merryman’s motion resulted in
irreparable harm. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1) (providing that a dis-
trict court “may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to
the adverse party”); AT&T Broadband v. Tech Commc’ns, Inc., 381
F.3d 1309, 1314 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that a TRO may be ap-
pealable under § 1292(a)(1) if, among other things, “the notice and
hearing sought or afforded suggest that the relief sought was a pre-
liminary injunction”); Ingram v. Ault, 50 F.3d 898, 900 (11th Cir.
1995) (holding that the denial of a TRO may be immediately ap-
pealable if it could have a serious or irreparable consequence).
Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED, sua sponte, for lack
of jurisdiction.
Related changes
Source
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get Courts & Legal alerts
Weekly digest. AI-summarized, no noise.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when 11th Circuit Published Opinions (CourtListener) publishes new changes.