eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2021-02

Warner v. United States ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 19-11273     Document: 00515758351         Page: 1     Date Filed: 02/26/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit                            United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 26, 2021
No. 19-11273
Summary Calendar                      Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Richard Warner, Joint Pro Se Plaintiff,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
United States of America,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-796
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Richard Warner, federal prisoner # 43448-177, along with 44 other
inmates incarcerated at the Bureau of Prisons’ Federal Medical Center in
Fort Worth Texas, filed a civil lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of
    18 U.S.C. § 3632
    (d)(4)(D). The district court sua sponte determined that
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-11273      Document: 00515758351           Page: 2    Date Filed: 02/26/2021
No. 19-11273
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 required each prisoner to file a
separate complaint asserting his individual claims, as well as paying a filing
fee. The district court, therefore, ordered Warner’s complaint to continue
and ordered the complaints of the other 44 inmates to be severed into
separate actions. That order is the subject of this appeal.
“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 conclude that we lack appellate jurisdiction over the instant appeal
because the district court’s severance order is not a final, appealable decision,
a qualifying interlocutory order, or a reviewable collateral order.          See
    28 U.S.C. §§ 1291
    , 1292; Acevedo v. Allsup’s Convenience Stores, Inc.,
    600 F.3d 516
    , 520 (5th Cir. 2010); In re Lieb,
    915 F.2d 180
    , 184 (5th Cir. 1990).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
2