Background
Ali Behroz Aziz and Shinkay Aziz appealed from three orders issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Judge Adam B. Abelson). The appellants challenged: (1) a March 30, 2026 order granting a defendant’s motion to seal; (2) an April 9, 2026 order denying their motions for appointment of counsel, vacation of the sealing order, and striking of the defendant’s sealed motion to dismiss; and (3) an April 27, 2026 order denying motions for recusal and reconsideration of the denial of counsel appointment.
The appellants proceeded pro se and sought to appeal these orders to the Fourth Circuit. The United States responded with a jurisdictional challenge.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that it may only exercise jurisdiction over final orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, or certain interlocutory and collateral orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). The orders at issue—relating to sealing, appointment of counsel, and recusal—were neither final nor appealable interlocutory or collateral orders.
The court also addressed alternative jurisdictional arguments. Even assuming the appellants asserted certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), no certification order appeared on the district court’s docket. Additionally, to the extent mandamus relief was sought, the appellants failed to demonstrate the clear and indisputable right to such relief required under precedent.
Key Takeaways
- Most interlocutory orders—those issued before a case concludes—are not appealable; appeals generally must await final judgment.
- Certification under § 1292(b) requires an explicit certification order from the district court; assertion by the appellant is insufficient.
- Mandamus relief requires a showing of a clear and indisputable right, not merely disagreement with district court rulings.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates the strict jurisdictional gatekeeping function of federal appellate courts. Appellants cannot circumvent finality requirements through piecemeal appeals of nonfinal orders. The opinion reinforces that pro se litigants, like represented parties, must comply with jurisdictional statutes and procedural requirements. For practitioners, it underscores the importance of understanding which district court orders are immediately appealable and which require either finality or exceptional circumstances (such as certified interlocutory appeals or mandamus).
The unpublished status means the opinion is not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit, but the jurisdictional principles it applies remain fundamental to federal appellate practice.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.