Adams v. Lumpkin ( 2023 )

Case: 22-20595 Document: 00516883326 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________ United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-20595
FILED
September 5, 2023
____________
Lyle W. Cayce
Alex Adams, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bobby Lumpkin; Chief Judge Lee Rosenthal; Texas
D.N.A. Mixture Project; Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals; United States Supreme Court in Washington
D.C.,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:22-CV-3115
______________________________
Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Alex Adams, Texas prisoner # 1181239, requests leave to proceed in
forma pauperis (IFP) in his appeal of the district court’s order dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as barred by judicial and sovereign immunity in
part and staying his claims and administratively closing his case in part. See
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-20595 Document: 00516883326 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
No. 22-20595
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Adams alleged that the Texas DNA Mixture Project
had tested certain unspecified evidence in his case and found that his DNA
was not present. Thus, Adams claimed that he was actually innocent and that
the courts had erroneously denied his requests for relief.
As a threshold matter, we must consider whether we have jurisdiction
to consider Adams’s appeal. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.
1987). Our jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final decisions under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, certain interlocutory decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, partial
judgments certified as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) and
§ 1292(b), and certain decisions under the collateral order doctrine. Martin
v. Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476, 481-82 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Powell,
468 F.3d 862, 863 (5th Cir. 2006).
Because the district court resolved some—but not all—of Adams’s
claims, the district court’s order was not a final judgment under § 1291. See
Martin, 618 F.3d at 481. The district court’s order does not evince an
unmistakable intent to enter a final, appealable judgment under Rule 54(b).
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture v. Pilgrim
Enters., Inc., 170 F.3d 536, 538-41 (5th Cir. 1999). Additionally, the order at
issue does not fit within any of the categories of appealable interlocutory
orders listed in § 1292(a) that involve injunctive relief, receivership, or
admiralty cases, and the district court did not certify that the order was
appealable under § 1292(b). Finally, the district court’s order did not resolve
issues separate from the merits that would be unreviewable on appeal from a
final judgment under the collateral order doctrine. See Martin, 618 F.3d at
481-83 & nn.10-11; see also Sammons v. Economou, 940 F.3d 183, 186 (5th Cir.
2019); S. La. Cement, Inc. v. Van Aalst Bulk Handling, B.V., 383 F.3d 297, 302
(5th Cir. 2004). Therefore, we lack jurisdiction over Adams’s appeal of the
district court’s order. See Martin, 618 F.3d at 481-82; Powell, 468 F.3d at 863.
2
Case: 22-20595 Document: 00516883326 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/05/2023
No. 22-20595
Accordingly, Adams’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED as
unnecessary, and his appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Adams
is reminded that, because he has accumulated at least three strikes under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), he is barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or
appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is
under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
3