Case ID: f-appx_459/html/0448-01.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

R. Wayne JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant v. Rick THALER, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-10368
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 2, 2012.
    R. Wayne Johnson, Amarillo, TX, pro se.
    Craig William Cosper, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Kelly Michelle Croxton, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

R. Wayne Johnson, Texas prisoner # 282756, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application challenging his 2009 disciplinary conviction of possessing contraband. He appeals the district court’s denial of the second motion for a preliminary injunction he filed in conjunction with that application.

Interlocutory orders denying preliminary injunctions are immediately appeal-able as an exception to the final-judgment rule. 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1); Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir.1991). However, during the pendency of Johnson’s appeal, the district court entered a final judgment dismissing Johnson’s underlying habeas claims. Those claims included a request for permanent injunctive relief. The entry of a final judgment regarding permanent injunctive relief renders any order regarding temporary injunctive relief moot. Louisiana World Exposition, Inc. v. Logue, 746 F.2d 1033, 1038 (5th Cir.1984). This court lacks jurisdiction to decide moot questions or issues that cannot affect the rights of the parties before it. McRae v. Hogan, 576 F.2d 615, 617 (5th Cir.1978). Accordingly, Johnson’s appeal, which challenges only the denial of preliminary injunctive relief, is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Johnson’s incorporated motion to expedite his appeal is DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.