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 Supreme 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 # 1181239, requests leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the 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 administratively 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: 09/05/2023
No. 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 that he was actually innocent and that 

the courts had erroneously denied his requests for relief. 

As a threshold matter, we must consider 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 decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, partial 

judgments certified as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and 

§ 1292(b), and certain decisions under 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 resolved 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. The 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 involve injunctive relief, receivership, or 

admiralty cases, and the district court did not certify that the order was 

appealable under § 1292(b). Finally, the district court’s order did not resolve 

issues separate from the merits that would 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: 09/05/2023
No. 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 accumulated at least three strikes under 28 

U.S.C. § 1915(g), he is barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or 

appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is 

under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). 

Case: 22-20595 Document: 00516883326 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/05/2023