The King/Morocco v. Peake BMW of New Orleans

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 11, 2020
• Docket: 19-30434
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 19-30434 Document: 00515303457 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2020

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals

No. 19-30434 Fifth Circuit

FILED Summary Calendar February 10, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce THE KING/MOROCCO, Clerk

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

PEAKE BMW OF NEW ORLEANS, Inter-Alia,

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:18-CV-9004

Before JONES, HIGGINSON, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * The King/Morocco moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal. By moving this court for leave to proceed IFP, The King/Morocco is challenging the district court’s determination that his appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). “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). We do not

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 19-30434 Document: 00515303457 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2020

No. 19-30434

have jurisdiction to address The King/Morocco’s appeal of the magistrate judge’s order denying him IFP status. See Donaldson v. Ducote, 373 F.3d 622, 624 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Colburn v. Bunge Towing, Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 379 (5th Cir. 1989). In addition, an untimely notice of appeal in a civil case deprives this court of jurisdiction. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213-14 (2007). Because he did not file a timely notice of appeal from the district court’s order denying his motion for an appeal to the district court, this court also lacks jurisdiction over that portion of The King/Morocco’s appeal. See id.; FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The IFP motion is DENIED as moot. King is WARNED that future frivolous, repetitive, or otherwise abusive filings will invite the imposition of sanctions, which may include dismissal, monetary sanctions, and restrictions on his ability to file pleadings in this court and any court subject to this court’s jurisdiction.