Linicomn v. Harris County Sheriff's Office

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 26, 2025
Docket24-20545
StatusUnpublished

This text of Linicomn v. Harris County Sheriff's Office (Linicomn v. Harris County Sheriff's Office) 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
Linicomn v. Harris County Sheriff's Office, (5th Cir. 2025).

Opinion

Case: 24-20505 Document: 80-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit _____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 24-20505 consolidated with FILED No. 24-20545 September 26, 2025 _____________ Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Roosevelt L. Linicomn, Jr.,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Harris County Sheriff’s Office; Harris County District Attorney’s Office; Harris County Commissioners Court; Steven Belt; Michelle Anderson; E. Crain; B. Evans; E. Wilrich; A.C. Husley; Patrick J. Ruzzo; United States Attorney Office,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-389 ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Oldham, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: *

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 24-20505 Document: 80-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2025

No. 24-20505 c/w No. 24-20545

Roosevelt L. Linicomn, Jr., proceeding pro se in district court and on appeal, contests the dismissal of his action, filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His notice of appeal is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (30-day deadline unless United States agency, officer, or government is party). Along that line, he contends his appeal was subject to a 60-day deadline, asserting his action named the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) as a party. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). The USAO was never served, however, and made only a limited appearance to assert the court lacked jurisdiction over it. See Jones v. Sheehan, Young & Culp, P.C., 82 F.3d 1334, 1340 (5th Cir. 1996) (stating court does not have jurisdiction over unserved party “unless it waived service or entered a general appearance”); see also Maiz v. Virani, 311 F.3d 334, 340 (5th Cir. 2002) (“A party makes a general appearance whenever it invokes the judgment of the court on any question other than jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, our court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (timely filing notice of appeal is jurisdictional requirement). DISMISSED.

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

Related

Jones v. Sheehan, Young & Culp, P.C.
82 F.3d 1334 (Fifth Circuit, 1996)
Maiz v. Virani
311 F.3d 334 (Fifth Circuit, 2002)
Bowles v. Russell
551 U.S. 205 (Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Linicomn v. Harris County Sheriff's Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/linicomn-v-harris-county-sheriffs-office-ca5-2025.