Muhammad v. Wiles

Case: 20-50279 Document: 00516105888 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/23/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 23, 2021
No. 20-50279
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Bilal Muhammad,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Richard Wiles; Marco Vargas; Kevin Lanahan; Delia
Gomez; Ricardo Samaniego; Carlos Leon; David Stout;
Carl Robinson; Joanne Bernal; Eric Foss; John Hanner;
Aramark Services, Incorporated; Aramark
Correctional Services, L.L.C.; John Doe 1-125; El Paso
County; Vincent Perez,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 3:19-CV-367
Case: 20-50279 Document: 00516105888 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/23/2021
No. 20-50279
Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Bilal Muhammad, a pretrial detainee at the El Paso County Jail Annex
(EPCJA), appeals the dismissal of claims raised in his pro se civil rights
complaint and the denial of various postjudgment motions. Muhammad’s
claims stem from his allegation that the EPCJA does not provide him with an
adequate kosher diet as dictated by his religious faith. He sought injunctive
relief and damages based on claims arising under the First Amendment; the
Eighth Amendment; the Fourteenth Amendment; the Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a); and
civil provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), § 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). He also raised state law
claims alleging violations of the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(TRFRA), TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 110.003; state law
claims of breach of contract; and state tort claims for intentional infliction of
emotional distress, conspiracy, and general breach of duty.
In its memorandum opinion and order, the district court addressed
and disposed of Muhammad’s claims for injunctive relief and damages under
the RLUIPA and the First Amendment. On the same date that the district
court entered its memorandum opinion, it entered a “final judgment”
dismissing the case with prejudice based on its memorandum opinion. In the
memorandum opinion, the district court did not address, much less dismiss,
Muhammad’s claims arising under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Eighth
Amendment, the RICO statute, the TRFRA, and state tort and contract law.
Furthermore, it did not address or dismiss those claims in any of the other
orders denying postjudgment relief from which Muhammad took an appeal.
*
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.
2
Case: 20-50279 Document: 00516105888 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/23/2021
No. 20-50279
“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).
Because many of the claims raised by Muhammad remain pending and
unadjudicated in the district court, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See
28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a),(b); FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); Martin v.
Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476, 481 (5th Cir. 2010); Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint
Venture v. Pilgrim Enters., Inc., 170 F.3d 536, 538-41 (5th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. All
of Muhammad’s outstanding motions are DENIED.
3