Seaforth v. Cornerstone Home Lending

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: September 2, 2025
• Docket: 25-50177
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-50177 Document: 60-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED September 2, 2025 No. 25-50177 Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Shunston S. Seaforth,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Cornerstone Home Lending, Incorporated; Lone Care, L.L.C.; U.S. National Bank Association, Trustee for Ginnie Mae REMIC Trust,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:25-CV-144 ______________________________

Before Smith, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Shunston Seaforth moves to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in his interlocutory appeal from the denials of his “motion to stay foreclosure pro- ceedings,” which effectively sought a preliminary injunction, and his motion for a temporary restraining order to stay foreclosure proceedings. We must examine the basis for our jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-50177 Document: 60-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2025

No. 25-50177

Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). We lack jurisdiction over Seaforth’s interlocutory appeal from the denial of a temporary restraining order. See In re Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990). Further, while this appeal was pending, the district court entered a final judgment dismissing Seaforth’s claims. His appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction therefore is moot. See Koppula v. Jaddou, 72 F.4th 83, 84–85 (5th Cir. 2023); see also Am. Precision Ammunition, L.L.C. v. City of Min. Wells, 90 F.4th 820, 827 (5th Cir. 2024) (“We lack subject matter jurisdiction to review a moot claim.”). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. Seaforth’s IFP motion and motion to supplement the record or, alterna- tively, for judicial notice are DENIED as moot.