IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-20780

Summary Calendar 

SANDRA G. HALE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; METREX RESEARCH CORPORATION; 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; STEPHEN SEDER, Doctor; 

RAJANI POTU, Doctor; BAYLOR UNIVERSITY SYSTEM; THE 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH 

SCIENCE CENTER AT HOUSTON; MICHAEL DEBAKEY MEDICAL 

CENTER (VA HOSPITAL), 

Defendants-Appellees 

****************************************************************** 

SANDRA G. HALE, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant 

v. 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS; DOCTOR STEPHEN J. SEDER; 

DOCTOR RAJANI POTU; METREX RESEARCH, UNITED STATES; 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SYSTEM; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH 

SCIENCE CENTER, 

 Defendants-Appellees 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:16-CV-1189 

USDC No. 4:16-CV-3071

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 3, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-20780 Document: 00514180469 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/03/2017
No. 16-20780

2 

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Sandra G. Hale filed in the district court a complaint raising personal 

injury claims against multiple defendants. At the same time, Hale filed a 

similar complaint in state court, which was removed to the district court and 

filed as a separate action. Hale now seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

(IFP) on appeal from the district court’s orders consolidating her two civil 

actions and denying in part her motion to remand her claims to state court. By 

seeking leave to proceed IFP in this court, Hale is challenging the district 

court’s denial of her request for leave to proceed IFP on appeal and certification 

that this appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 

202 (5th Cir. 1997).

“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, 

if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). We lack 

jurisdiction to review either of the district court’s orders because they are not 

final judgments for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291; they are not among the type 

of orders listed in § 1292(a); they were not certified by the district court under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to be final 

appealable orders; and they do not fall within a jurisprudential exception, such 

as the collateral-order doctrine, that would render them final, appealable 

orders. See Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957-59 (5th Cir. 

1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. United States Army, 639 F.2d 1100, 1102-03 & n.3 

(5th Cir. 1981); see also In re Macon Uplands Venture, 624 F.2d 26, 27-28 (5th 

Cir. 1980) (holding that an order of consolidation is interlocutory and not 

 

* 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: 16-20780 Document: 00514180469 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/03/2017
No. 16-20780

3 

immediately appealable); Melancon v. Texaco, Inc., 659 F.2d 551, 552-53 (5th 

Cir. 1981) (holding that the denial of a motion to remand is interlocutory and 

not immediately appealable). 

Because this court lacks jurisdiction to consider Hale’s appeal from the 

district court’s interlocutory orders, she has not shown that she will present a 

nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 

1983). Accordingly, her motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the 

appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. 

 Case: 16-20780 Document: 00514180469 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/03/2017