Desouzaneto v. Carroll

Fifth Circuit

Desouzaneto v. Carroll

92 F. App'x 94

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 24, 2004

Docket03-50839

StatusUnpublished

This text of 92 F. App'x 94 (Desouzaneto v. Carroll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Desouzaneto v. Carroll, 92 F. App'x 94 (5th Cir. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Former Texas prisoner, Michael Desouzaneto, has appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel in a civil rights case; however, we note that Desouzaneto has not appealed the district court’s subsequent entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We have jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution only when there is an actual case or controversy at the time we decide an appeal. United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980); Ruiz v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 385, 389 (5th Cir.1999). In this case, we lack appellate jurisdiction because no effective relief is available to Desouzaneto. ** Vieux Carre Property Owners v. Brown, 948 F.2d 1436, 1446 (5th Cir.1991).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

**

We note that the coherency of Desouzaneto’s appellate briefing and his pleadings in the district court reassure us that his ability to present his civil rights claims was not foreclosed by the district court’s denial of counsel. Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 412-13 (5th Cir.1985).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Former Texas prisoner, Michael Desouzaneto, has appealed the district court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel in a civil rights case; however, we note that Desouzaneto has not appealed the district court’s subsequent entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. We have jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution only when there is an actual case or controversy at the time we decide an appeal. United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388, 396, 100 S.Ct. 1202, 63 L.Ed.2d 479 (1980); Ruiz v. Johnson, 178 F.3d 385, 389 (5th Cir.1999). In this case, we lack appellate jurisdiction because no effective relief is available to Desouzaneto. ** Vieux Carre Property Owners v. Brown, 948 F.2d 1436, 1446 (5th Cir.1991).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

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.

**

We note that the coherency of Desouzaneto’s appellate briefing and his pleadings in the district court reassure us that his ability to present his civil rights claims was not foreclosed by the district court’s denial of counsel. Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.2d 405, 412-13 (5th Cir.1985).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 F. App'x 94, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desouzaneto-v-carroll-ca5-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack