# United States Court of Appeals **for the Fifth Circuit**

____________ No. 22-20595

____________ Alex Adams, Plaintiff—Appellant ,

versus Bobby Lumpkin; Chief Judge Lee Rosenthal; Texas D.N.A. Mixture Project; Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; United States Su preme Court in Washington D.C., Defendants—Appellees

.

______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:22-CV-3115

______________________________ Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges

. Per Curiam: * Alex Adams, Texas prisoner # 11812 39, requests leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of th e district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as barred by judicial and sovereign immunity in part and staying his claims and administ ratively closing his case in part. See

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 5, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-20595 Document: 00516883326 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023No. 22-20595

2 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Adams alleged that the Texas DNA Mixture Project had tested certain unspecified evidence in his case and found that his DNA was not present. Thus, Adams claimed th at he was actually innocent and that the courts had erroneously denied his requests for relief. As a threshold matter, we must cons ider whether we have jurisdiction to consider Adams’s appeal. See Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Our jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, certain interlocutory de cisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, partial judgments certified as final under Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and § 1292(b), and certain decisions un der the collateral order doctrine. Martin v. Halliburton , 618 F.3d 476, 481-82 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Powell , 468 F.3d 862, 863 (5th Cir. 2006).
Because the district court resol ved some—but not all—of Adams’s claims, the district court’s order was not a final judgment under § 1291. See Martin , 618 F.3d at 481. Th e district court’s order does not evince an unmistakable intent to enter a final, appealable judgment under Rule 54(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P

. 54(b); Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., Inc. , 170 F.3d 536, 538-41 (5th Cir. 1999). Additionally, the order at issue does not fit within any of the categories of appealable interlocutory orders listed in § 1292(a) that involv e injunctive relief, receivership, or admiralty cases, and the district court did not ce rtify that the order was appealable under § 1292(b). Finally, th e district court’s order did not resolve issues separate from the merits that wo uld be unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment under the collateral order doctrine. See Martin , 618 F.3d at 481-83 & nn.10-11; see also Sammons v. Economou , 940 F.3d 183, 186 (5th Cir. 2019); S. La. Cement, Inc. v. Van Aalst Bulk Handling, B.V. , 383 F.3d 297, 302 (5th Cir. 2004). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over Adams’s appeal of the district court’s order. See Martin , 618 F.3d at 481-82; Powell , 468 F.3d at 863. Case: 22-20595 Document: 00516883326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2023No. 22-20595

3 Accordingly, Adams’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED as unnecessary, and his appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Adams is reminded that, because he has accu mulated at least three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he is barred from pr oceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of se rious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Case: 22-20595 Document: 00516883326 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/05/2023