Michael Roberson v. State of Texas

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedOctober 8, 2020
Docket19-20262
StatusUnpublished

This text of Michael Roberson v. State of Texas (Michael Roberson v. State of Texas) 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
Michael Roberson v. State of Texas, (5th Cir. 2020).

Opinion

Case: 19-20262 Document: 00515594739 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/08/2020

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED October 8, 2020 No. 19-20262 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Michael Cardora Roberson,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

State of Texas; Medical Staff, at Holliday Unit; Inmate FNU Branford,

Defendants—Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:18-CV-1524

Before Dennis, Southwick, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Michael Cardora Roberson, Texas prisoner # 2167695, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit in which he alleged that prison officials did not provide Roberson medical care after another inmate attacked him. Roberson moves

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 19-20262 Document: 00515594739 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/08/2020

No. 19-20262

for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on the appeal of the denial of his motions for appointment of counsel and other rulings by the district court. In addition, Roberson moves for: (1) appointment of counsel; (2) transfer of his appeal to the Texas Second Court of Appeals; and (3) dismissal of his appeal because he failed to exhaust prison administrative remedies. We lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the denial of a motion for appointment of counsel in a § 1983 case is not immediately appealable. See Williams v. Catoe, 946 F.3d 278, 279 (5th Cir. 2020) (en banc). Moreover, Roberson moved for a voluntary dismissal of his case, and the district court granted the motion. Therefore, we also lack jurisdiction because there is no longer a live case or controversy as to issues related to his other notices of appeal. United States v. Heredia-Holguin, 823 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Roberson’s remaining motions are DENIED as moot.

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

Related

United States v. David Heredia-Holguin
823 F.3d 337 (Fifth Circuit, 2016)
Elliott Williams v. Jeffrey Catoe
946 F.3d 278 (Fifth Circuit, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Roberson v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-roberson-v-state-of-texas-ca5-2020.