Case ID: f-appx_144/html/0410-01.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

Roger D. WOODS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-41250.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Aug. 10, 2005.
    Roger Dale Woods, Tennessee Colony, TX, pro se.
    Marta Rew McLaughlin, Kelley J. Dwyer, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondentr-Appellee.
    
      Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This interlocutory pro se appeal by Roger D. Woods, Texas prisoner # 907939, is from the denial of a motion for a preliminary injunction in his federal habeas proceeding. Concomitantly, Woods seeks a certificate of appealability (COA), and he has filed a motion to supplement the record.

Woods has not established that he satisfied the four necessary factors for obtaining a preliminary injunction. See Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir.1991). Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for an injunction. See White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th Cir. 1989).

As for Woods’ COA request, a COA is necessary only to appeal from a “final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court”. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). The current proceeding is an interlocutory appeal brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292; therefore, a final order has not been rendered. In short, a COA is not required to pursue the injunction denial.

Because the material that Woods seeks to submit in his motion to supplement was not presented to the district court, his motion to supplement is DENIED. See United States v. Flores, 887 F.2d 543, 546 (5th Cir.1989); see also Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co., 742 F.2d 888, 889-90 n. 2 (5th Cir.1984) (appellate court “do[es] not sit to receive new evidence”).

Woods’ appeal is frivolous; accordingly, it is DISMISSED pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.