Raymond Carr v. William Stephens, Director

Filing

PUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [15-20419 Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: GJC; denying motion for oral argument filed by Appellant Mr. Raymond Earl Carr [8167310-2]; denying motion to expedite appeal filed by Appellant Mr. Raymond Earl Carr [8151508-2]; denying motion for costs filed by Appellant Mr. Raymond Earl Carr [8084746-2]; denying motion for a preliminary injunction against state officials filed by Appellant Mr. Raymond Earl Carr [8057517-2], denying motion for a prisoner release order filed by Appellant Mr. Raymond Earl Carr [8009223-2]; denying motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Raymond Earl Carr [7989387-2] [15-20419]

Case: 15-20419

Document: 00513900238

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-20419

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
March 7, 2017

RAYMOND EARL CARR,

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

Petitioner - Appellant
v.
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent - Appellee

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Earl Carr filed a section 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus
challenging his 2013 robbery conviction, the revocation of his release on an
earlier burglary conviction, and a disciplinary conviction he received in prison.
Carr also sought a preliminary injunction ordering that Texas Department of
Criminal Justice guards be barred from filing false disciplinary charges
against him.
The district court denied Carr’s motion for a preliminary injunction on
the grounds that Carr could not show either a likelihood of success on the
merits or irreparable harm. Carr filed this appeal challenging that denial.

Case: 15-20419

Document: 00513900238

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/07/2017

No. 15-20419
While this appeal was pending, the district court granted summary
judgment in favor of defendants. Among the claims dismissed with prejudice
was Carr’s request for a permanent injunction, which sought the same
equitable relief as his request for a preliminary injunction. Carr has filed a
separate appeal challenging that final judgment.
The entry of a final judgment on a request for permanent injunctive relief
renders moot any appeal of an order ruling on a temporary request for the same
relief. La. World Exposition, Inc. v. Logue, 746 F.2d 1033, 1038 (5th Cir. 1984);

see also Johnson v. Thaler, 459 F. App’x 448, 448–49 (5th Cir. 2012)
(dismissing as moot a prisoner’s appeal of the denial of a preliminary
injunction because the district court had since entered a final judgment
dismissing prisoner’s habeas claim, including a request for permanent
injunctive relief). That is because the ruling on the request for temporary
relief, which involves a guess about how the district court will ultimately rule
on the merits, has no effect once the district court has made its final ruling.
Because we lack jurisdiction to decide moot questions, McRae v. Hogan,
576 F.2d 615, 617 (5th Cir. 1978), Carr’s appeal challenging the denial of his
preliminary injunction is DISMISSED. Carr’s incorporated motions related to
this appeal are DENIED. Carr’s separate appeal of the final judgment entered
against him will be considered by another panel.

2