T. Hill v. Dallas County Dist Atty Office, et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [15-10522 Dismissed as Frivolous] Judge: EHJ , Judge: JES , Judge: JLD Mandate pull date is 03/03/2017; denying motion to proceed IFP filed by Appellant Mr. T. H. Hill [7963666-2] [15-10522]
Date Filed: 02/10/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fif h Circuit
February 10, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
T. H. HILL,
DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; DALLAS COUNTY;
CITY OF DALLAS; BRENDA H. THOMPSON; CARL E. ROBERTS, L.L.C.;
CARL R. KING; DALLAS COUNTY CLERKS OFFICE,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:15-CV-1311
Before JONES, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
T. H. Hill moves for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
to pursue the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. By doing so, he is
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 02/10/2017
challenging the district court’s certification that his appeal is not taken in good
faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). Because the
notice of appeal was filed after the magistrate judge had issued his report and
recommendation (“R&R”) but before the district court had ruled, Hill sought to
appeal the R&R.
A premature notice of appeal is valid only where the order appealed from
announces a decision that would be appealable if it were immediately followed
by the entry of judgment. FirsTier Mortg. Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co.,
498 U.S. 269, 276–77 (1991); see also United States v. Cooper, 135 F.3d 960,
963 (5th Cir. 1998). Even if it were immediately followed by the entry of judgment, the R&R was not appealable, see Cooper, 135 F.3d at 962–63, so the
notice of appeal is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court, see id. Because Hill sought to appeal a non-appealable order, his appeal has no arguable
basis in law or fact and therefore is frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED,
and the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24;
5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?