Young v. Collin College

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: February 12, 2026
• Docket: 25-40433
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 25-40433 Document: 64-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/12/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-40433 ____________ FILED February 12, 2026 Dana F. Young, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Collin College,

Defendant—Appellee. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:24-CV-979 ______________________________

Before Graves, Ho, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Dana F. Young moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in her appeal from an interlocutory order dismissing her motion for summary judgment without prejudice as premature. A motion for leave to proceed IFP challenges the district court’s determination that an appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

_____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40433 Document: 64-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/12/2026

No. 25-40433

“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 in a civil case is a prerequisite for appellate jurisdiction. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213-14 (2007). We do not have jurisdiction over Young’s interlocutory appeal of the dismissal of her motion for summary judgment. See Tamez v. City of San Marcos, 62 F.3d 123, 124 (5th Cir. 1995). Further, “a notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory decision” does not “serve as a notice of appeal from the final judgment.” FirsTier Mortg. Co. v. Invs. Mortg. Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269, 276 (1991). Because Young has not appealed from the district court’s final judgment, which was entered on October 24, 2025, we lack jurisdiction over the instant appeal. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 213-14; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The IFP motion is DENIED as moot.