United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-20366

Brandy Brenay Charles, 

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Child Protective Services; Behavioral Hospital of 

Bellaire; Probate Court Judge of Harris County Nos. 2-

3; Herman Memorial Hospital; Judge of the 314th 

District Court of Harris County, Texas; Harris 

County, 

Respondents—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CV-1516

Before Willett, Ho, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 15, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20366 Document: 00515603055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2020
No. 19-20366

2

Brandy Brenay Charles was a civil detainee at the Behavioral Hospital 

of Bellaire at the time she filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the district 

court. The district court construed her petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

petition and dismissed it without prejudice for failure to exhaust her state 

court remedies, and she filed a notice of appeal. Her appeal was dismissed 

for want of prosecution. Charles subsequently filed an emergency motion to 

reinstate or reopen in the district court, which the district court construed as 

arising under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and denied. She also 

filed a motion for leave to file an original petition for writ of mandamus, which 

the district court denied. Over one year later, Charles filed a document which 

the district court construed as a notice of appeal. The district court denied 

her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and 

certified that her appeal was not taken in good faith. She moves for leave to 

proceed IFP on appeal.

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, sua sponte, if 

necessary. See Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004). The 

notice of appeal did not specify which order or judgment Charles was 

appealing. Civil litigants, like Charles, have 30 days from the entry of 

judgment to notice an appeal. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of 

Chicago, 138 S. Ct. 13, 16-17 (2017) (holding that a timely notice of appeal in 

a civil case is a jurisdictional prerequisite where, as here, the time limit is set 

by statute); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); see also Archer v. Lynaugh, 821 F.2d 1094, 

1096 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that federal habeas proceedings are civil in 

nature); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, her notice of appeal was 

not filed within 30 days of the entry of the district court’s judgment

dismissing her petition or the orders denying Charles’s subsequent motions. 

Therefore, Charles’s appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See

Hamer, 138 S. Ct. at 16-17. Her motions for leave to proceed IFP on appeal, 

Case: 19-20366 Document: 00515603055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2020
No. 19-20366

3

appointment of counsel, and a ruling on her motion for appointment of 

counsel are also DENIED.

Case: 19-20366 Document: 00515603055 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/15/2020