Case ID: f-appx_396/html/0102-01.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

Freddie R. LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT BOSSIER PARISH; Bossier Parish; George Henderson; Mark Toloso; Warden Weaver; Assistant Warden Lee; Assistant Warden Stokes; Sergeant Shelton; Deputy Griffin; Deputy Orr; Deputy Hawn; Steve Broadensky, Bossier Sheriff Department Medical Staff; David, Bossier Sheriffs Department Medical Staff; Sheriff Larry Dean, Bossier Parish Sheriff; Deputy Hall; Dentist Haverton, Louisiana State University Dentist; Jones; Deputy Martin; Deputy J. Martin; Sergeant Parish; Sergeant Pierce; Porter; Deputy Prather; Doctor Robert Russell, Louisiana State University Doctor; Thornhill, Bossier Sheriff Department Medical Staff; Sergeant Wadsworth, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-30309
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 23, 2010.
    Freddie R. Lewis, Winnfield, LA, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Freddie Lewis, Louisiana prisoner # 395306, filed a civil rights complaint against various defendants, complaining of his arrest and of the conditions of his confinement. The district court dismissed several claims against various defendants with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and dismissed any claim for monetary compensation (for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction and sentence) as frivolous until such time as the conditions in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994), are met. The district court noted, and its docket sheet reflects, that claims remain pending against numerous defendants.

Because the district court dismissed some but not all claims and defendants, this court must examine whether it has jurisdiction. See Martin v. Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476, 480-82 (5th Cir.2010). We have jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; certain interlocutory decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292; partial judgments certified as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), United States v. Powell, 468 F.3d 862, 863 (5th Cir.2006); and certain decisions under the collateral order doctrine, Martin, 618 F.3d at 480-83. Lewis’s appeal does not fall into any of these eatego-ries, so we lack jurisdiction, and the appeal is 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.