Court Opinion

ID: 9840323
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-16 00:01:07.372023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:33.738527
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10693         Document: 00516897194             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/15/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                       No. 23-10693
                                     Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                     ____________                             September 15, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   George Ray Davis,                                                                   Clerk

                                                                    Petitioner—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
   Correctional Institutions Division,

                                                Respondent—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 4:22-CV-60
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Clement, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          George Ray Davis, Texas prisoner # 02297512, moves for leave to
   proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s denial of
   his motion to stay his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding. Davis sought to stay his
   § 2254 proceeding so that he could return to state court to exhaust various
   claims that he contended arose after he discovered new exculpatory
          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10693      Document: 00516897194          Page: 2   Date Filed: 09/15/2023

                                    No. 23-10693

   evidence. He contends that the district court erred in denying his stay motion
   under the rubric set forth in Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277-78 (2005).
          As a threshold matter, we must examine the basis of our jurisdiction
   to hear this appeal. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). We
   may only exercise jurisdiction over final orders and certain interlocutory
   orders. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Dardar v. Lafourche Realty
   Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988). Here, because the district court’s
   order denying Davis’s motion to stay his § 2254 proceeding is neither a final
   order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order, we lack jurisdiction
   to consider his appeal from that order. See Grace v. Vannoy, 826 F.3d 813,
   816-21 (5th Cir. 2016); Dardar, 849 F.2d at 957.
          Accordingly, Davis’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his
   appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Grace, 826 F.3d at 820-
   21.

                                         2