HUNT v. LUMPKIN (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.2021-08-20No. No. 20-20318

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court dismissed Hunt's appeal in part as frivolous and in part for lack of jurisdiction, denied his request for a certificate of appealability as unnecessary, and denied all remaining pending motions.

Johnathan Hunt, an incarcerated individual, appealed the denial of several motions in his federal habeas case, including requests for a preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order, discovery, and joinder of claims. He also sought a certificate of appealability, bail pending appeal, expedited consideration, release to earned mandatory supervision, and appointment of counsel. The court found that Hunt failed to establish the required elements for obtaining a preliminary injunction and that several of the interlocutory orders he sought to appeal were not immediately appealable under federal law.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether a certificate of appealability is required for interlocutory appeals in habeas proceedings
Whether Hunt satisfied the four-element test for preliminary injunction relief
Whether interlocutory orders denying a temporary restraining order, discovery, and joinder of claims are immediately appealable

Procedural posture

This is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of multiple motions in a federal habeas proceeding.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

This interlocutory appeal by Johnathan Hunt, Texas prisoner # 560374, is from the denial of motions for a preliminary injunction, temporary restraining order (TRO), discovery, and joinder of claims in his federal habeas proceeding. Hunt seeks a certificate of appealability (COA), as well as bail pending appeal, an expedited ruling on his motion for bail pending appeal, release to earned mandatory supervision, and the appointment of counsel.

A COA is not required to appeal an interlocutory order denying a motion for a preliminary injunction because the interlocutory denial is not “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Thus, Hunts request for a COA is denied as unnecessary.

Hunt makes no attempt to establish that he satisfied the four necessary elements for obtaining a preliminary injunction. See Byrum v. Landreth, 566 F.3d 442, 445 (5th Cir. 2009); Enter. Intl, Inc. v. Corporacion Estatal Petrolera Ecuatoriana, 762 F.2d 464, 472 (5th Cir. 1985). Consequently, his appeal of the denial of these motions is dismissed as frivolous. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

The interlocutory orders denying Hunts motions for a TRO, discovery, and joinder of claims are not immediately appealable. See Acevedo v. Allsups Convenience Stores, Inc., 600 F.3d 516, 520 (5th Cir. 2010); Texaco Inc. v. Louisiana Land & Expl. Co., 995 F.2d 43, 44 (5th Cir. 1993); In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990). Thus, Hunts appeal of these orders is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Hunts appeal is DISMISSED in part as frivolous and DISMISSED in part for want of jurisdiction. His request for a COA is DENIED as unnecessary, and all remaining pending motions are DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE

Per Curiam:*

FN* 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.