Sonya Youvett McNeal v. Navy Federal Credit Union

USCA11 Case: 22-13296 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13296
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
SONYA YOUVETT MCNEAL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Mortgage Division,
CSC CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY,
Registered Agent for - Navy Federal Credit Union,
FISERV, INC.,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13296 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 2 of 8
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13296
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
D.C. Docket No. 1:21-cv-02968-LMM
____________________
Before BRASHER, ABUDU, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Sonya McNeal, proceeding pro se, sued several defendants
over a property dispute in which defendants allegedly violated the
Fair Housing Act, the CARES Act, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due
Process Clause. After the district court dismissed her suit for failure
to state a claim, she filed a motion to reconsider, motion for change
of venue (which was functionally a motion to recuse), motion for
preliminary injunction, and a second motion to reconsider. The
district court also denied each of those motions. It is unclear, but it
seems McNeal challenges some, if not all, of these decisions on ap-
peal. We lack jurisdiction over the district court’s dismissal of
McNeal’s complaint and its denial of her motion for preliminary
injunction and second motion to reconsider. As to her first motion
to reconsider and motion to recuse, they are meritless. So we dis-
miss in part and affirm in part.
I.
McNeal borrowed funds from Navy Federal Credit Union in
2016 to buy property in Georgia and later defaulted on her loan
during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the CARES Act placed
a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, Navy
USCA11 Case: 22-13296 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 3 of 8
22-13296 Opinion of the Court 3
Federal started the foreclosure process. The parties agree that Navy
Federal sold the property at a foreclosure sale in October 2022.
McNeal sued Navy Federal and two other defendants pro se.
A magistrate judge found that her complaint and amended com-
plaint failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted and
ordered her to file a second amended complaint. McNeal instead
filed a “motion for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstand-
ing the verdict.” The magistrate judge noted that her various com-
plaints contained hundreds of exhibits, handwritten notes, and ex-
cerpts from websites that failed to meet the pleading requirements
and that her motion for directed verdict contained “virtually in-
comprehensible allegations of wrongdoing.” The court also noted
that she ignored the court’s order to file an amended complaint.
The magistrate judge recommended the case be dismissed without
prejudice, and the district court adopted that recommendation.
During all this, McNeal separately filed a judicial complaint
with us in July 2021 against the magistrate judge and district judge
for abusing her, acting without authority, disregarding the law, and
abusing their positions. We dismissed her complaint in February
2022 because she failed to allege any credible facts or submit evi-
dence to support her assertion of judicial misconduct.
Nearly six months later, McNeal moved the district court to
reconsider its dismissal of her suit, based on her allegations of mis-
conduct. She also asked the district judge to recuse in a motion to
change venue. McNeal also moved for a preliminary injunction to
USCA11 Case: 22-13296 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 4 of 8
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13296
stop her creditors from foreclosing on the property. The district
court denied all her motions.
About a month later, McNeal filed a notice of appeal desig-
nating for review: (1) the district court’s refusal to recuse and (2)
the district court’s denial of her motion for a preliminary injunc-
tion. She argued that all the rulings and judgments in the case were
void because of her allegations of judicial misconduct. The same
day, she also filed a second motion to reconsider the dismissal of
her initial complaint and denial of her motion for preliminary in-
junction. The district court denied that motion, but McNeal did not
appeal that decision or amend her initial appeal to include that de-
nial.
II.
We have an ongoing obligation to satisfy our jurisdiction
and may raise any jurisdictional issue sua sponte. AT&T Mobility,
LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc., 494 F.3d 1356, 1360
(11th Cir. 2007). We review jurisdictional issues de novo. Id. Mean-
while, we review a judge’s refusal to recuse for abuse of discretion.
McWhorter v. City of Birmingham, 906 F.2d 674, 678 (11th Cir. 1990)
(citing Jaffree v. Wallace, 837 F.2d 1461, 1465 (11th Cir. 1988)).
III.
A.
We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s initial dis-
missal of McNeal’s suit, its denial of her motion for a preliminary
USCA11 Case: 22-13296 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 5 of 8
22-13296 Opinion of the Court 5
injunction, and its denial of her second motion to reconsider. We
address each issue in turn.
McNeal did not timely appeal from the dismissal of her com-
plaint. In civil cases, a party must file a timely notice of appeal for
our jurisdiction to be proper. Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d
1296, 1300-02 (11th Cir. 2010). When the United States is not a
party, a party must file a notice of appeal within thirty days after
the relevant judgment or order is filed. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). That timeline is not tolled if a party files a mo-
tion to reconsider under Rule 60(b) more than 28 days after the en-
try of judgment. See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Edward D. Stone, Jr. &
Assoc., 743 F.2d 1519, 1522 (11th Cir. 1984).
McNeal never appealed the dismissal. Instead, she filed sev-
eral motions roughly six months later asking the district court to
reconsider its order and seeking a preliminary injunction. She ap-
pealed the district court’s denial of those motions, but never timely
appealed the district court’s order granting the defendants’ motions
to dismiss. Because she did not timely appeal the dismissal and be-
cause she filed her first motion to reconsider six months after that
dismissal—and therefore did not toll the time to appeal—McNeal’s
notice of appeal was untimely as to the order dismissing her com-
plaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); see also
Stone, 743 F.2d at 1522.
Next, we turn to the denial of McNeal’s motion for a prelim-
inary injunction. McNeal’s appeal is moot to the extent it asks us to
reverse the district court’s denial of McNeal’s motion for a
USCA11 Case: 22-13296 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 6 of 8
6 Opinion of the Court 22-13296
preliminary injunction. We have no authority to give opinions on
moot questions. Zinni v. ER Solutions, 692 F.3d 1162, 1166 (11th Cir.
2012). An appeal can be rendered moot—in whole or in part—by
intervening events. Vital Pharm., Inc. v. Alfieri, 23 F.4th 1282, 1288
(11th Cir. 2022). McNeal filed the motion for a preliminary injunc-
tion to prevent the defendants from entering her property, fore-
closing on her property, or communicating with her about such
matters. But both parties agree that the property has since been
foreclosed. That intervening event moots the issue. So we dismiss
McNeal’s appeal of the denial of the motion for preliminary injunc-
tion.
Finally, we also lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s
denial of McNeal’s second motion for reconsideration. We lack ju-
risdiction to review any order issued after a notice of appeal has
been filed, unless the appellant files an additional or amended no-
tice of appeal referring to that order. Bogle v. Orange Cnty. Bd. of.
Cnty. Comm’rs, 162 F.3d 653, 661 (11th Cir. 1998). The district court
denied McNeal’s second motion after she filed her notice of appeal.
And McNeal did not file another notice of appeal or amend the one
she filed. Thus, we dismiss her appeal of the denial of the motion.
B.
We have jurisdiction to review McNeal’s motion to recuse
and a portion of her first motion to reconsider.
Turning to the motion to recuse, we cannot say the district
court abused its discretion. A judge must recuse from a proceeding
when someone could reasonably question his impartiality or when
USCA11 Case: 22-13296 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 7 of 8
22-13296 Opinion of the Court 7
he has a personal bias against a party. 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)–(b)(1). In
assessing whether this might be the case, we must ask whether an
objective, fully informed lay person would entertain a significant
doubt about the judge’s impartiality. Parker v. Connors Steel Co., 855
F.2d 1510, 1524 (11th Cir. 1988).
McNeal argues that the district judge (and magistrate judge)
should have recused because of pending charges of misconduct.
But we concluded our investigation into those allegations in Feb-
ruary 2022 and found no cognizable misconduct on the part of the
judge. None of the allegations we investigated would raise any
doubts about the district court’s impartiality in the mind of an ob-
jective layperson. So we affirm the district court’s denial of
McNeal’s motion to recuse and its denial of her first motion for
reconsideration.
We turn next to the district court’s denial of McNeal’s first
motion to reconsider. An appellant forfeits an argument when he
does not clearly identify it in his brief. Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines
Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004). We will generally not con-
sider non-jurisdictional arguments forfeited on appeal, though we
may exercise our discretion to consider a forfeited argument in five
circumstances. See United States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th
Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 95 (2022). In her briefing,
McNeal raised only the district court’s misconduct and her request
for the court’s recusal as grounds to reverse the denial of her mo-
tion to reconsider. None of the Campbell exceptions apply to war-
rant addressing any of the other arguments she made for
USCA11 Case: 22-13296 Document: 35-1 Date Filed: 09/26/2023 Page: 8 of 8
8 Opinion of the Court 22-13296
reconsidering in the district court. So, for the same reasons we af-
firm the district court’s denial of McNeal’s motion to recuse, we
also affirm the district court’s denial of her first motion to recon-
sider.
IV.
For the reasons above, the district court is AFFIRMED in
part and the other portions of the appeal are DISMISSED.