Necessary v. Dretke

Fifth Circuit

Necessary v. Dretke

202 F. App'x 770

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 2006

Docket05-20311

StatusUnpublished

This text of 202 F. App'x 770 (Necessary v. Dretke) 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

Necessary v. Dretke, 202 F. App'x 770 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Johnny A. Necessary, Texas prisoner # 690032, was convicted of robbery and *771 sentenced to 60 years of imprisonment. Necessary appeals the district court’s order redesignating his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. “This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Because the district court’s order did not dispose of any of Necessary’s claims, it was not a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It also was not an interlocutory order specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), was not certified by the district court as immediately appealable under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54, and did not meet the collateral order doctrine. Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction over Necessary’s appeal. See Acoustic Sys., Inc. v. Wenger Corp., 207 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir.2000); Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir.1988); Thompson v. Betts, 754 F.2d 1243, 1245 (5th Cir.1985). Necessary’s appeal is DISMISSED. Necessary’s motion to compel production of documents is also DENIED AS MOOT.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

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

PER CURIAM: *

Johnny A. Necessary, Texas prisoner # 690032, was convicted of robbery and *771 sentenced to 60 years of imprisonment. Necessary appeals the district court’s order redesignating his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition as a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. “This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Because the district court’s order did not dispose of any of Necessary’s claims, it was not a final judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. It also was not an interlocutory order specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), was not certified by the district court as immediately appealable under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54, and did not meet the collateral order doctrine. Accordingly, this court does not have jurisdiction over Necessary’s appeal. See Acoustic Sys., Inc. v. Wenger Corp., 207 F.3d 287, 290 (5th Cir.2000); Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir.1988); Thompson v. Betts, 754 F.2d 1243, 1245 (5th Cir.1985). Necessary’s appeal is DISMISSED. Necessary’s motion to compel production of documents is also DENIED AS MOOT.

*

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 F. App'x 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/necessary-v-dretke-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack