Case: 21-2141 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 12/15/2021
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
RESHAWN ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES, MERRICK B. GARLAND,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2021-2141
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama in No. 7:20-cv-00796-RDP,
Judge R. David Proctor.
______________________
Decided: December 15, 2021
______________________
RESHAWN ARMSTRONG, Tuscaloosa, AL, pro se.
GALINA I. FOMENKOVA, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for defendants-appellees. Also represented by
BRIAN M. BOYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY, JR., PATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY.
______________________
Case: 21-2141 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 12/15/2021
2 ARMSTRONG v. US
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and CHEN, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Reshawn Armstrong originally filed this appeal in the
Eleventh Circuit, challenging eight separate orders from
the Northern District of Alabama. See J.A. 31–32. One
was the district court’s December 1, 2020 order granting
Ms. Armstrong’s motion to transfer her Fair Labor Stand-
ards Act claim to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. J.A.
32; J.A. 1. The Eleventh Circuit transferred the appeal of
that order to us. Armstrong v. United States, No. 21-10200-
CC, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 20183, at *1 (11th Cir. July 7,
2021). We dismiss.
“Courts of appeals employ a prudential rule that the
prevailing party in a lower tribunal cannot ordinarily seek
relief in the appellate court.” SkyHawke Techs., LLC v.
Decca Int’l Corp., 828 F.3d 1373, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (first
citing Deposit Guar. Nat’l Bank v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326,
333–34 (1980); then citing Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692,
702–04 (2011)). Here, Ms. Armstrong requests that we
transfer her Fair Labor Standards Act claim to the Claims
Court. Appellant’s Br. 4. Yet that is precisely what the
district court ordered on December 1, 2020. J.A. 1. The
transfer would have occurred on February 1, 2021, after
the 60-day stay required under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4)(B).
J.A. 35–36. Before that process could run its course, how-
ever, Ms. Armstrong appealed. By appealing, Ms. Arm-
strong stayed the very relief she sought and won. See 28
U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4)(B) (“If an appeal is taken from the dis-
trict court’s grant or denial of the motion, proceedings shall
be further stayed until the appeal has been decided by
[us].”). Regardless, because Ms. Armstrong prevailed be-
low, we dismiss her appeal of the district court’s transfer
order.
Case: 21-2141 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 12/15/2021
ARMSTRONG v. US 3
To avoid further delaying the transfer, we order that
the mandate issue concurrently with this dismissal. See
FED. R. APP. P. 41(b). Accordingly, the stay is lifted, and
the district court may now transfer Ms. Armstrong’s claim
to the Claims Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(d)(4)(B).
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.