Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-13-40517/USCOURTS-ca5-13-40517-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
B. Alderson
Appellee
Anderson Brandon
Appellee
Clute Municipality(s)
Appellee
Jimmy Diaz
Appellant
Jesse Garza
Appellee
Rodriguez
Appellee
Jesse Soley
Appellee
Mark Wicker
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40517

JIMMY DIAZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

B. ALDERSON, Police Officer; SERGEANT RODRIGUEZ; POLICE CHIEF 

MARK WICKER; SERGEANT JESSE GARZA; CLUTE MUNICIPALITY(S); 

PUBLIC SERVANT JESSE SOLEY; OFFICER ANDERSON BRANDON,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CV-545

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jimmy Diaz, Texas prisoner # 1737301, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint against law enforcement officials. The district court denied Diaz’s 

motion for leave to file a supplemental response to Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment and dismissal. Diaz appeals this order. The district 

court’s docket sheet reflects that Diaz’s § 1983 complaint remains pending. 

* 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

January 7, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40517 Document: 00512491634 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2014
No. 13-40517

We must sua sponte examine whether we have jurisdiction to consider 

the appeal. See Martin v. Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476, 481 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Federal appellate courts only have jurisdiction over appeals from (1) final 

orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) orders that are deemed final due to a 

jurisprudential exception, such as the collateral order doctrine; (3) 

interlocutory orders specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); and (4) interlocutory 

orders that are properly certified for appeal by the district court pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) or § 1292(b). Dardar v. Lafourche Realty 

Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. U.S. Army, 639 

F.2d 1100, 1102 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1981). The order denying Diaz’s motion for 

leave to file a supplemental response to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment and dismissal does not fall within any of these categories.

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal, and the appeal 

is DISMISSED. Diaz’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 

is DENIED. 

2

 Case: 13-40517 Document: 00512491634 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2014