Sandra Hale v. USA , 698 F. App'x 211 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 16-20780   Document: 00514180469   Page: 1   Date Filed: 10/03/2017
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    No. 16-20780                              FILED
    Summary Calendar                      October 3, 2017
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    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
    Case: 16-20780      Document: 00514180469         Page: 2    Date Filed: 10/03/2017
    No. 16-20780
    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.
    2
    Case: 16-20780    Document: 00514180469     Page: 3   Date Filed: 10/03/2017
    No. 16-20780
    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.
    3