Lonnie Poydras v. City of Baton Rouge, Louisiana , 424 F. App'x 280 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 10-31003 Document: 00511461480 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/29/2011
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    April 29, 2011
    No. 10-31003
    Summary Calendar                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    LONNIE POYDRAS,
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    MICHAEL J JEFFERSON,
    Defendant-Appellee
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Middle District of Louisiana
    USDC No. 3:10-CV-324
    Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Lonnie Poydras, Louisiana prisoner # 42058, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
    complaint against the City of Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge City Police Officers
    Christopher Wheat and Donald Johnson, and Assistant United States Attorney
    (AUSA) Michael J. Jefferson, alleging that he was subjected to a false arrest and
    malicious prosecution. The district court determined that AUSA Jefferson was
    entitled to absolute immunity and dismissed the malicious prosecution claim
    *
    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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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: 10-31003 Document: 00511461480 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/29/2011
    No. 10-31003
    against him as frivolous. The district court docket sheet reflects that claims
    remain pending against the other defendants.
    Because the district court dismissed some but not all claims and
    defendants, we must sua sponte examine whether we have jurisdiction to
    consider the appeal. See Martin v. Halliburton, 
    618 F.3d 476
    , 481 (5th Cir.
    2010). We have jurisdiction over appeals from (1) final orders pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. § 1291; (2) orders that are deemed final due to a jurisprudential
    exception, such as the collateral order doctrine; (3) interlocutory orders specified
    in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); and (4) interlocutory orders that are properly certified for
    appeal by the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) or
    § 1292(b). Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 
    849 F.2d 955
    , 957 (5th Cir. 1988);
    Save the Bay, Inc. v. U.S. Army, 
    639 F.2d 1100
    , 1102 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1981).
    Because the order from which Poydras appeals does not fall within any of these
    categories, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal, and the appeal is
    DISMISSED. Poydras’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal
    is DENIED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-31003

Citation Numbers: 424 F. App'x 280

Judges: King, Benavides, Elrod

Filed Date: 4/29/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024