Lumsden v. Lumpkin

Case: 20-50912 Document: 00516245655 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/18/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
March 18, 2022
No. 20-50912
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar
Clerk
Raymond E. Lumsden,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division; Senior Warden Cynthia
Lofton; Assistant Warden Chimdi Akwitti; Assistant
Warden Nick Clayton; Major Beau Smith; Jessica Riley;
H. M. Pederson,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:20-CV-630
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-50912 Document: 00516245655 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/18/2022
Raymond E. Lumsden, Texas prisoner # 2109472, filed a pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the instant appeal, Lumsden
challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for a temporary restraining
order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction.
To the extent that Lumsden is appealing the denial of his request for
a TRO, we lack jurisdiction. See In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183, 186 (5th Cir.
1990). However, under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), we have jurisdiction to
review the denial of Lumsden’s request for a preliminary injunction. See
Lakedreams v. Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1106-07 (5th Cir. 1991).
During the pendency of this interlocutory appeal, the district court
dismissed Lumsden’s § 1983 action. The court’s ruling renders Lumsden’s
interlocutory appeal moot. See Auto Parts Mfg. Miss., Inc. v. King Constr. of
Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 191 (5th Cir. 2015) (citing Venezia v. Robinson,
16 F.3d 209, 211 (7th Cir. 1994)).1
Accordingly, Lumsden’s interlocutory appeal is DISMISSED in
part for lack of jurisdiction and DISMISSED in part as moot.
1
Lumsden appealed the district court’s final judgment under Case No. 21-50272,
which remains pending in this circuit and unaffected by this decision.