WASHINGTON v. DAVIS (2019)

Ronald Charles Washington, Texas prisoner # 1839046, appeals pro se the district court's order denying several motions filed in connection with a case characterized by the court as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding. The district court's order did not dispose of the case.

Federal appellate courts may only exercise jurisdiction over appeals from (1) final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) orders deemed final due to a jurisprudential exception, such as the collateral-order doctrine; (3) interlocutory orders specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); and (4) interlocutory orders properly certified for appeal by the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) or § 1292(b). Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988).

In this instance, the district court has not entered a final judgment, has not made an interlocutory order specified in § 1292(a), and has not certified an interlocutory order for appeal. See Martin v. Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476, 481 (5th Cir. 2010); § 1292(a), (b). Furthermore, the court's stay order is not a collaterally-appealable order. See Grace v. Vannoy, 826 F.3d 813, 815–21 (5th Cir. 2016).

To the extent Washington challenges the court's order characterizing his “Rule 60(b)” motion as a § 2254 application, the notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after the order. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a)(1)(A) (30-day time period to file notice of appeal in civil case). Therefore, we do not have jurisdiction to review a challenge to the order characterizing the motion as a § 2254 application, even if it were considered a final judgment. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.  

PER CURIAM:* FN* Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.