Romero v. Brown

Fifth Circuit

Romero v. Brown

148 F. App'x 247

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 14, 2005

Docket05-10234

StatusUnpublished

This text of 148 F. App'x 247 (Romero v. Brown) 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

Romero v. Brown, 148 F. App'x 247 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Nelson A. Romero, now Texas prisoner # 1127658, appeals the dismissal as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit, asserting deliberate indifference to his medical needs. 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). A timely notice of appeal is a prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by this court. United States v. Carr, 979 F.2d 51, 55 (5th Cir.1992).

Romero’s notice of appeal, filed almost one year after the district court’s judgment, is untimely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction over the instant appeal, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

The district court’s dismissal of Romero’s complaint counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Romero is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Nelson A. Romero, now Texas prisoner # 1127658, appeals the dismissal as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1915A(b), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit, asserting deliberate indifference to his medical needs. 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). A timely notice of appeal is a prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by this court. United States v. Carr, 979 F.2d 51, 55 (5th Cir.1992).

Romero’s notice of appeal, filed almost one year after the district court’s judgment, is untimely. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction over the instant appeal, and the appeal is DISMISSED.

The district court’s dismissal of Romero’s complaint counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.1996). Romero is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is detained or incarcerated in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.

*

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)

148 F. App'x 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/romero-v-brown-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack