Case ID: f-appx_448/html/0468-01.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

William Solomon LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. BRAZORIA COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; Sheriff Charles Wagner; University of Texas Medical Branch, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-20249
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 3, 2011.
    William Solomon Lewis, Conroe, TX, pro se.
    Before DAVIS, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

William Solomon Lewis, Texas prisoner # 73998279, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights action, which was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A timely “notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). A document may be construed as a notice of appeal only if it “clearly evinces the party’s intent to appeal.” Mosley, 813 F.2d at 660 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A pleading that both seeks to appeal and to obtain relief from the district court does not clearly evince an intent to appeal. See id.

Both of the pleadings Lewis evidently intended to serve as notices of appeal also sought postjudgment relief from the district court. See Rosenzweig v. Azurix Corp., 332 F.3d 854, 864 (5th Cir.2003). Those pleadings therefore did not clearly evince an intent to appeal, and were ineffective to serve as notices of appeal. See Mosley, 813 F.2d at 660. Because there is not effective notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction over Lewis’s appeal. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360.

Lewis moves for leave to supplement his brief and to have his case placed under seal. Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, Lewis’s motions are denied.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.