Ervin Brown, Jr. v. Rick Thaler, Director

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [10-10514 Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: JLW , Judge: ECP , Judge: PRO. Mandate pull date is 12/08/2010; denying motion for certificate of appealability filed by Appellant Mr. Ervin Sterling Brown, Jr. [6592824-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Ervin Sterling Brown, Jr. [6592822-2] [10-10514]

Ervin Brown, Jr. v. Rick se: 10-10514 Document: 00511297164 Ca Thaler, Director

Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/17/2010

Doc. 0

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 10-10514 S u m m a r y Calendar November 17, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

E R V I N STERLING BROWN, JR., P e titio n e r­ A p p e lla n t, v. R IC K THALER, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, C O R R E C T I O N A L INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, R e s p o n d e n t­ A p p e lle e .

A p p e a l from the United States District Court fo r the Northern District of Texas U S D C No. 7:10-CV-22

B e fo r e WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* E r v in Sterling Brown, Jr., formerly Texas prisoner # 559314, moves for a c e r t ific a t e of appealability (COA) to appeal from the order of the district court d e n y in g his application for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Brown challenges a May 7, 2009, prison disciplinary hearing at which he was fo u n d guilty of extorting property from another prisoner. Brown also moves for a p p o in tm e n t of counsel; that motion is denied.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-10514 Document: 00511297164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/17/2010 No. 10-10514 B r o w n was released from prison after the district court denied his habeas a p p lic a t io n . He had served his 20-year sentence at the time of his release. His c a s e no longer presents a case or controversy, and we lack jurisdiction to c o n s id e r his appeal. See Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). A P P E A L DISMISSED. COA DENIED. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT O F COUNSEL DENIED.

2