Nikita Goffney v. J. Sauceda ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 11-20152     Document: 00511765120         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/23/2012
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    February 23, 2012
    No. 11-20152
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    NIKITA VAN GOFFNEY,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    J. SAUCEDA; C. DAVIDSON; T. TAYLOR; J. EVERITT; G. HARDAY;
    SERGEANT M. HOLT; J. FERRARO; T. PITZER; G. HARDAGE; COUNTY OF
    MONTGOMERY; MICHAEL MCDOUGAL; JIM PREWITT; CITY OF CONROE,
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 4:02-CV-2638
    Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Nikita Van Goffney, Texas prisoner # 1582354, moves for appointment of
    counsel and production of transcripts at government expense on appeal from the
    district court’s denial of his motion for a temporary injunction and a temporary
    restraining order (TRO).
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 11-20152   Document: 00511765120     Page: 2   Date Filed: 02/23/2012
    No. 11-20152
    This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction sua sponte if
    necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 
    813 F.2d 659
    , 660 (5th Cir. 1987). First, to the
    extent Goffney seeks to appeal the denial of a TRO, we lack jurisdiction to
    entertain the appeal. See In re Lieb, 
    915 F.2d 180
    , 183 (5th Cir. 1990). Second,
    Goffney seeks only to enjoin the state appellate process regarding a conviction
    that occurred after the events giving rise to his underlying 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    action. That state court appellate process is complete, and there is nothing to
    be enjoined. We cannot grant Goffney a remedy, and his appeal is moot. See In
    re Blast Energy Servs., Inc., 
    593 F.3d 418
    , 423 (5th Cir. 2010).
    APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-20152

Filed Date: 2/23/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021