Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20380/USCOURTS-ca5-13-20380-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20380

PATRICK WAYNE BELL,

Plaintiff–Appellant

v.

FAUSTO AVILA, Officially and Individually; GWENDOLYN CRAWFORD,

Officially and Individually; EUGENE FONTENOT, JR., Officially and

Individually; JOSEPH M. CURRY, Officially and Individually; LISA D. 

VATANI; ELTON S. SIMS, Officially and Individually; SHEILA E. TORRES, 

Officially and Individually; SAMMIE HUBBARD, Officially and Individually; 

MARCUS N. CHILDRESS, Officially and Individually; JOHN D. SEIGLE, 

Officially and Individually; FRANK SZYMCZAK, Officially and Individually; 

ROBERT D. HERRERA, Officially and Individually; CAREY S. STAPLES, 

Officially and Individually; DAVID M. RICE, Officially and Individually; RICK 

THALER, Officially and Individually; DAVID L. CALLENDER, Officially and 

Individually; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH; REAGAN DUNCAN, 

Regional Supervisor for Access to Courts of the Texas Department of 

Corrections; VICKIE BARROW, Assistance Program Administrator,

Defendants–Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:11-CV-4238

Before DENNIS, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 5, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

Case: 13-20380 Document: 00512927814 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2015
Patrick Wayne Bell, Texas prisoner # 1190375, filed a pro se civil rights 

complaint against numerous defendants, including “Unknown Dr. on 7-15-11.” 

The district court granted Bell’s later motion to identify Lisa D. Vatani and to 

substitute her name for that of the previously unknown doctor. The district 

court’s docket does not reflect that Vatani filed an answer or otherwise 

responded to Bell’s complaint, as ordered by the district court.

The district court granted a motion for summary judgment filed on 

behalf of seventeen of the original defendants, but not Vatani, and dismissed 

those seventeen defendants. The court granted Bell’s motion to amend his 

complaint solely to add claims against two additional defendants, and the court 

later granted those defendants’ motion to dismiss. It entered a “final 

judgment” dismissing the case with prejudice for the reasons set forth in its 

orders granting the motion to dismiss and granting the motion for summary 

judgment, leaving Bell’s claims against Vatani unresolved. Bell has filed a 

notice of appeal.

“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) (per curiam). 

Bell’s claims against Vatani remain pending in the district court. We therefore 

lack jurisdiction over Bell’s appeal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a),(b); Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 54(b); Martin v. Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476, 481 (5th Cir. 2010); 

Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., Inc., 170 F.3d 536, 

538–41 (5th Cir. 1999).1

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

1 Bell may seek relief from the district court’s judgment under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b)(1) by filing the appropriate motion with the district court.

 

Case: 13-20380 Document: 00512927814 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2015