set in the district court’s scheduling order. Moreover, the facts with which Kendall wished to amend his complaint were known to Kendall at the time he filed his initial complaint. See Sosa, 133 F.3d at 1419 (providing that a relevant factor in finding that a court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend was that “the information supporting the proposed amendment to the complaint was available to [the plaintiff] even before she filed suit”). Because Kendall failed to establish good cause for why leave to amend should be granted, and because the district court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend. See Smith v. School Bd. of Orange Cnty., 487 F.3d 1361, 1366-67 (11th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
holding that we must first determine our jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits of the appeal holding that the court evaluating a claim of qualified immunity must first determine whether the plaintiff states a claim of a constitutional violation at all and then must determine whether the claimed right was clearly established before proceeding to the qualified immunity question holding that a court may deny leave to amend when the moving party had the opportunity to amend earlier but waited after judgment to do so holding that where a party files an untimely motion to amend we must first determine whether the party complied with rule 16bs good cause requirement before considering whether justice so requires allowing an amendment holding a motion is untimely if not filed after the party has knowledge to support disqualification and after the party suffers an adverse ruling