IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-50262

Summary Calendar

R. WAYNE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

RICK THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 7:09-CV-39

Before WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

Plaintiff-Appellant R. Wayne Johnson, Texas prisoner # 282756, appeals

the district court’s denial of his motions for a preliminary injunction and for

class-action certification. These motions were filed in conjunction with a 28

U.S.C. § 2254 application, in which Johnson challenged the validity of Texas’s

habeas corpus law, the alleged use of disciplinary infractions to deny inmates

release on mandatory supervision, and the charging of criminal acts as

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 8, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-50262 Document: 00511439327 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/08/2011
No. 10-50262

disciplinary infractions. Johnson’s application also stated that he was seeking

an injunction ordering Texas courts and officials to adhere to Supreme Court

precedent, declaring Texas’s habeas corpus law void, and ordering Texas officials

to discontinue prosecuting criminal acts as disciplinary infractions in the

absence of full constitutional safeguards at disciplinary hearings.

On appeal, Johnson first states that he is seeking a certificate of

appealability (COA). However, he is not required to obtain a COA to appeal the

denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction because he is not challenging

“the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A).

Accordingly, his request for a COA is denied as unnecessary.

Interlocutory orders denying preliminary injunctions are immediately

appealable as an exception to the final-judgment rule. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1292(a)(1); Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991).

However, Johnson has not met the criteria for warranting a preliminary

injunction. See Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009). The

district court did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for a preliminary

injunction. See Anderson v. Jackson, 556 F.3d 351, 355 (5th Cir. 2009).

Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order denying Johnson’s motion for a

preliminary injunction.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) provides that a party may appeal the

denial of class-action certification only “if a petition for permission to appeal is

filed with the circuit clerk within 14 days after the order is entered.” Johnson's

notice of appeal was filed well more than 14 days after the denial of his motion

for certification. Therefore, we dismiss his petition for permission to appeal the

denial of his motion for class certification as untimely filed.

MOTION DENIED; AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.

2

Case: 10-50262 Document: 00511439327 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/08/2011