Richard Kananen v. Secretary, Department of Corrections | Docket

Richard Kananen v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

Richard Kananen appealed both the December 6, 2022 dismissal of his amended § 2254 petition and the March 21, 2025 denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. Because the notice of appeal was untimely as to the 2022 judgment and the Rule 60(b) motion did not toll the appeal period, the court dismissed that part of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction but allowed the appeal to proceed as to the 2025 order.

Docket

Court

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Court level

appellate

Jurisdiction

Federal

Date filed

October 28, 2025

Parties

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA · appelleeRICHARD KANANEN · appellantSECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS · appellee

Judges

LAGOA · majorityBRASHER · majorityABUDU · majority

Status

published

Disposition

DISMISSED in part, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction; appeal proceeds only as to the March 21, 2025 order denying the Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.

Opinion type

combined

Format

other

Nature of suit

ORD

Review standard

de novo

Source

View PDF

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

No. 25-11260

RICHARD KANANEN, Petitioner-Appellant, versus SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 6:21-cv-01936-PGB-DAB

Before LAGOA, BRASHER, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

This appeal is DISMISSED in part, sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction. Richard Kananen, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s: December 6, 2022 judgment dismissing his amended 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus; and March 21, 2025 order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion.

Page 2Kananen’s notice of appeal, deemed filed under the prison mailbox rule on April 9, 2025, is untimely to challenge the December 6, 2022 judgment. See Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin. , 606 F.3d 1296, 1300-02 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding that a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (providing that a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered if there is not a federal party), 4(c)(1) (providing that a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is deemed filed on the date that he delivered it to prison authorities for mailing). Additionally, his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, deemed filed under the prison mailbox rule on March 10, 2025, did not toll the time to appeal from the judgment. See Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr. of Ill. , 434 U.S. 257, 263 n.7 (1978) (holding that an appeal from the denial of an untimely motion for reconsideration does not bring up for review the underlying judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A), 4(c)(1).

Kananen’s notice of appeal, however, is timely to challenge the district court’s March 21, 2025 order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion. This appeal shall proceed only as to that order.

No motion for reconsideration may be filed unless it complies with the timing and other requirements of 11th Cir. R. 27-2 and all other applicable rules.