Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30644/USCOURTS-ca5-15-30644-0/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. 15-30644

DAVID LEE HILL,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

HAI PHAN; UNKNOWN S.P.D. OFFICER; WILLIE SHAW; CHARLES REX 

SCOTT; ALAN J. GOLDEN; STEVE PRATOR; JOHN D. MOSELY, JR.; MICHEAL 

ENWRIGHT; GREGORY SCOTT BRADY; UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, White 

Female Assistant District Attorney; CAPTAIN FARRIS; L. EATON; LEWIS, Law 

Librarian; SERGEANT CRAFT; UNKNOWN MAIL CLERK; ROSS OWEN; 

AMANDA SULLIVAN,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 5:13-CV-583

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

David Lee Hill, Louisiana prisoner # 42520, moves for leave to appeal in 

forma pauperis (IFP) and to view two sealed documents. We “have jurisdiction 

over appeals only from (1) a final decision under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) a decision 

 

* 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

June 10, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30644 Document: 00513542645 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2016
No. 15-30644

2

that is deemed final due to jurisprudential exception or that has been properly 

certified as final pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b)” and certain interlocutory 

orders under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. Askenase v. LivingWell, Inc., 981 F.2d 807, 809-

10 (5th Cir. 1993). “When an action involves multiple parties, any decision 

that adjudicates the liability of fewer than all of the parties does not terminate 

the action and is therefore not appealable unless certified by the district judge 

under Rule 54(b).” Id. at 810.

The district court’s order did not dispose of all of the claims or defendants 

in Hill’s civil rights action. Nor is there any certification under Rule 54. 

Because there is no final and appealable judgment, the appeal is DISMISSED 

for lack of jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, Hill’s motion for IFP is DENIED. 

His motion to view sealed documents is also DENIED. Nonetheless, we note 

for Hill’s benefit that one of the sealed documents is simply the district court’s 

internal form indicating, without comment, that a report and recommendation 

was filed, and the other is Hill’s own request for admissions and production of 

documents. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL MOTIONS DENIED

 Case: 15-30644 Document: 00513542645 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2016