Court Opinion

ID: 9838337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 00:00:32.526997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:36.306283
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-20595         Document: 00516883326             Page: 1      Date Filed: 09/05/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________                               United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                       No. 22-20595
                                                                                        FILED
                                                                                 September 5, 2023
                                      ____________
                                                                                      Lyle W. Cayce
   Alex Adams,                                                                             Clerk

                                                                     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.
Case: 22-20595      Document: 00516883326          Page: 2      Date Filed: 09/05/2023

                                    No. 22-20595

   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.

                                          2
Case: 22-20595     Document: 00516883326           Page: 3   Date Filed: 09/05/2023

                                    No. 22-20595

          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).

                                         3