United States v. William Andrew Kinsey, III

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-14663 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JUNE 6, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 9:99-cr-08078-WPD-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Petitioner-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM ANDREW KINSEY, III,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 6, 2011)
Before EDMONDSON and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and KRAVITCH, Senior Judge.
PER CURIAM:
William Andrew Kinsey, III, appeals the district court’s order (1) dismissing
his motion for clarification for lack of jurisdiction and (2) declining to transfer his
case to a proper district under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. On appeal, Kinsey raises several
arguments relating to the merits of the § 2241 habeas petition he originally filed in
the district court. However, because the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear
the merits of his claim, the only issue before this Court is whether the district court
erred by failing to transfer Kinsey’s case to the proper district.
We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision not to transfer a
case to another district due to a lack of jurisdiction. Dobard v. Johnson, 749 F.2d
1503, 1507 n.8 (11th Cir. 1985). If a person files an action in the district court but
the court lacks jurisdiction over the case, the court shall transfer the case to a
proper court “if it is in the interest of justice.” § 1631. While we have not defined
precisely what the “interest of justice” means in the context of a § 1631 transfer,
one important factor is whether a denial of a transfer would effectively bar the
plaintiff from relief in the proper court. See ITT Base Servs. v. Hickson, 155 F.3d
1272, 1276 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that a transfer was “in the interests of
justice” because, without the transfer, an appeal to the appropriate district court
would “probably be time-barred”); see also Slatick v. Dir., Office of Workers’
Comp. Programs, 698 F.2d 433, 434–35 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam)
(transferring a case to another court of appeals where denying the transfer would
time-bar the litigant from filing a petition for review in the proper court).
2
“It is a cardinal rule of appellate review that a party may not challenge as
error a ruling or other trial proceeding invited by that party.” United States v.
Love, 449 F.3d 1154, 1157 (11th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (quotation marks
omitted). We conclude that Kinsey invited any error by the district court. Before
dismissing Kinsey’s § 2241 petition for lack of jurisdiction, the district court
specifically requested input from the parties on whether it should transfer the case
to a proper court. Kinsey responded by asking the court to assume jurisdiction and
to rule on the merits of his claim. He appeared to affirmatively argue against a
transfer. Therefore, Kinsey induced the court into denying the transfer and waived
his right to challenge that decision on appeal.
In any event, the interests of justice did not warrant a transfer because, after
the court’s dismissal, nothing prevented Kinsey from filing his § 2241 petition in
the proper district. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
declining to transfer Kinsey’s petition.1
AFFIRMED.
1
Kinsey moved this Court for a stay, pending appeal, of the Bureau of Prison’s withholding
of his income for purposes of restitution. We note that Kinsey’s appeal does not concern the merits
of his restitution claim and its outcome would not have affected the withholding of payments. In any
event, the question is moot because this appeal has been resolved.
3