Richard Barroso v. State of Texas
This text of Richard Barroso v. State of Texas (Richard Barroso 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.
Opinion
Case: 17-20433 Document: 00514626399 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-20433 United States Court of Appeals
No. 18-20092 Fif th Circuit
FILED September 4, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce RICHARD BARROSO, Clerk
Plaintiff−Appellant,
versus
THE STATE OF TEXAS; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; CORRECTIONAL MANAGED HEALTH CARE; TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY MEDICAL PROVIDER; BRAD LIVINGSTON; ET AL.,
Defendants−Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:16-CV-3235
Before SMITH, HIGGINSON, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Richard Barroso, Texas prisoner #1452245, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against numerous officials of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 17-20433 Document: 00514626399 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2018
No. 17-20433 c/w 18-20092
challenging the conditions of confinement in the Dalhart Unit; Barroso was then transferred to the Michael Unit. On two occasions, Barroso moved for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) against officials of the Michael Unit, which is in the Eastern District of Texas. In both cases, the district court dismissed the motions for a TRO without prejudice to Barroso’s seeking relief in the Eastern District. Barroso appeals both dismissals, and we have consolidated the appeals.
Our jurisdiction is limited to appeals from final decisions. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Although certain interlocutory orders pertaining to injunctions are immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, we do not have appellate juris- diction over the denial of a TRO, which is not an “injunction” under § 1292(a)(1). See In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990); Overton v. City of Austin, 748 F.2d 941, 952 (5th Cir. 1984).
Accordingly, the appeals are DISMISSED. All of Barroso’s motions are DENIED as unnecessary.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Richard Barroso v. State of Texas, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-barroso-v-state-of-texas-ca5-2018.