Court Opinion

ID: 9890968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-17 00:00:33.650637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:22.410861
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10612      Document: 00516932935           Page: 1      Date Filed: 10/16/2023

            United States Court of Appeals
                 for the Fifth Circuit                                   United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________                                  FILED
                                                                          October 16, 2023
                                    No. 23-10612
                                  Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
                                  ____________

   Kenric Ledbetter, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
   situated; Isaac Cardenas, Individually and on behalf of all others
   similarly situated; Santhy Inthalangsy, Individually and on behalf of
   all others similarly situated; David Martin, Individually and on behalf of
   all others similarly situated, also known as Etsuzen; Miguel
   Bygoytia, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
   James Renfro, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
   Justin Panus, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
   Richard Cross, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
   William Oliver, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
   situated,

                                                              Plaintiffs—Appellants,
                                         versus

   Religious Practice Committee, Individually and in his or her
   official capacity; Timothy Jones, TDCJ Director of Chaplaincy,
   Individually and in his or her official capacity; Thomas Brouwer, TDCJ
   Assistant Director of Chaplaincy, Individually and in his or her official capacity;
   C. F. Hazelwood, TDCJ Director of Religious Service, Individually and
   in his or her official capacity; Christopher Carter, TDCJ Director of
   Rehabilitation Program Division, Individually and in his or her official capacity,

                                                             Defendants—Appellees.
Case: 23-10612         Document: 00516932935             Page: 2      Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:22-CV-191
                      ______________________________

   Before Wiener, Stewart, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Ten inmates at the French Robertson Unit of the Texas Department
   of Criminal Justice filed an action in the United States District Court for the
   Southern District of Texas complaining of violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983,
   2000cc. Because only one plaintiff had paid the filing fee, the court ordered
   each remaining plaintiff to pay the fee or to submit an application for leave to
   proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The plaintiffs objected and moved for
   reconsideration, which was denied. After the case was transferred to the
   appropriate venue—the Northern District of Texas—the plaintiffs were
   permitted to file an out-of-time notice of appeal from the filing fee order and
   from the order denying their motion for reconsideration.
          “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
   may hear appeals only from: (1) “final decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1291”;
   (2) “interlocutory decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292”; (3) “nonfinal
   judgments certified as final”; or (4) “some other nonfinal order or judgment
   to which an exception applies.” Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v.
   Pilgrim Enters., Inc., 170 F.3d 536, 538 (5th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation
   marks and citations omitted).
          Here, the appellants have not applied for IFP status in the district
   court or in this court, and there has been no final decision in this case. See

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

                                                2
Case: 23-10612      Document: 00516932935          Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/16/2023

                                    No. 23-10612

   § 1291. The appellants’ failure to comply with the orders by paying the fee or
   by moving for leave to proceed IFP could result in dismissal of their claims
   for failure to prosecute, but this has not yet occurred. Moreover, the orders
   are not among the types of interlocutory orders that are permitted to be
   appealed by statute. See § 1292(a)(1). The district court has not certified in
   writing that the orders involve a “controlling question of law as to which
   there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate
   appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
   litigation.” § 1292(b). Neither has the district court certified the matter for
   immediate appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). See DeMelo v. Woolsey
   Marine Indus., Inc., 677 F.2d 1030, 1031-32 (5th Cir. 1982) (discussing and
   comparing § 1292(b) and Rule 54(b)). As we therefore lack jurisdiction, this
   appeal must be DISMISSED.

                                          3