English v. Aramark

Case: 21-20554 Document: 00516534244 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-20554 November 4, 2022
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jake Anthony English,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Aramark Corporation; Aramark Correctional Services,
L.L.C.,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:18-CV-1585
Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jake Anthony English, then an inmate in the Texas penal system, filed
a complaint alleging a violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Consumer Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 17.41-17.63, 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-20554 Document: 00516534244 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2022
No. 21-20554
caused personal injuries. The district court granted the defendant’s motion
for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. On appeal, we ordered
a limited remand to determine whether diversity jurisdiction existed. On
remand, the district court issued an order concluding that diversity
jurisdiction existed. Subsequently, we affirmed the district court’s judgment
on the merits.
English filed a notice of appeal from the district court’s order on
limited remand. He argues that the district court was required to dismiss the
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if the facts underlying diversity
jurisdiction were not established at the time the lawsuit was filed and at the
time the motion for summary judgment was granted. In addition, English has
filed numerous motions, including two motions for judicial notice, a motion
to remand the case to the district court, a motion for leave to file a
supplemental brief, and a motion for leave to file a reply brief out of time.
“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).
Generally, we possess jurisdiction to review only a district court’s final
decisions. See 28 U.S.C. § 1291; Martin v. Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476, 481-83
(5th Cir. 2010). By ordering only a limited remand to the district court for
the sole purpose of making a specific finding as to the existence of diversity
jurisdiction, we retained jurisdiction over English’s original appeal and did
not empower the district court to render a new final decision. See United
States v. Cessa, 861 F.3d 121, 143 (5th Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the district
court’s order on limited remand does not qualify as a final decision that is
appealable. See § 1291; Martin, 618 F.3d at 481.
In light of the foregoing, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction, and English’s motions are DENIED as moot.
2