Kimble v. Cooley
This text of Kimble v. Cooley (Kimble v. Cooley) 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.
Opinion
Case: 23-30568 Document: 00517015402 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/28/2023
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED December 28, 2023 No. 23-30568 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ____________
Raymond H. Kimble, III,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Keith Cooley; Brent Thompson; J. Pelican; John Doe, Administrative Remedy Program Screening Officer; James LeBlanc,
Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:23-CV-921 ______________________________
Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Raymond H. Kimble, III, Louisiana prisoner # 503830, filed a pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In the instant appeal, he challenges the denial of his motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO)
_____________________ * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 23-30568 Document: 00517015402 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/28/2023
No. 23-30568
and the appointment of counsel. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Kimble’s appeal does not correspond to any appealable decision in the district court. The district court’s denial of a TRO is not an appealable decision. In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990). Further, we lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal directly from the magistrate judge’s order denying the appointment of counsel. See Butler v. S. Porter, 999 F.3d 287, 297 (5th Cir. 2021). The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. In light of our lack of jurisdiction, Kimble’s motion for the appointment of counsel on appeal is DENIED. To the extent that Kimble’s brief includes a motion for a restraining order, it is also DENIED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Kimble v. Cooley, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kimble-v-cooley-ca5-2023.