Case ID: f-appx_421/html/0353-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph L. JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant v. LOUISIANA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION; Thomas Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture; Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality; United States Department of Agriculture; Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-31166
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    April 5, 2011.
    Joseph L. Jones, Opelousas, LA, pro se.
    Eve Kahao Gonzalez, Esq., Amanda Hurt Smith, Louisiana Public Service Commission, Dwana Christy King, Esq., Ted R. Broyles, II, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality Legal Department, Neal Risley Elliott, Jr., Esq., Department of Health & Hospitals, Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Appellant Joseph L. Jones (Jones) brought suit against the Defendants-Ap-pellees herein. His complaint generally alleged what he described as “various actions, inactions, findings and decisions” of the Louisiana Public Service Commission, Thomas Vilsack, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, the United States Department of Agriculture, and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals.

Jones seeks to appeal from interlocutory orders of the district court: which (1) denied Jones’s motion to quash the warrant for his arrest issued by the state district courts in Louisiana; and (2) denied Jones’s request for appointment of counsel. Neither of the two orders complained of are appealable orders. The district court’s orders “clearly had the effect of disposing of ‘one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties’ ... involved.” Pettinelli v. Danzig, 644 F.2d 1160, 1161 (5th Cir.1981 Unit B) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)). Because there is no Rule 54(b) certification or certification for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), we have no jurisdiction to hear this appeal. This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Id. Appellant’s motion for appointment of counsel is dismissed.

DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.