Steve Morgan v. William Stephens, Director, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [16-20165 Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: TMR, Judge: ECP, Judge: JEG; denying motion to appeal conference filed by Appellant Mr. Steve Alan Morgan [8549943-2]; denying motion to substitute party filed by Appellant Mr. Steve Alan Morgan [8440262-2]; denying motion to file reply out of time filed by Appellant Mr. Steve Alan Morgan [8430060-2]; denying motion to file supp reply brief filed by Appellant Mr. Steve Alan Morgan [8399321-2] [16-20165]

Case: 16-20165

Document: 00514186961

Page: 1

Date Filed: 10/06/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-20165
Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
October 6, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

STEVE ALAN MORGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.

LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; TROY D.
SIMPSON; KOKLIA NAIK,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CV-2833
Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Steve Alan Morgan, Texas prisoner # 1222355, has given notice of his
appeals from the district court’s interlocutory orders in his civil rights action
denying his motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining
order, for leave to amend the complaint (two motions), and for appointment of

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 16-20165

Document: 00514186961

Page: 2

Date Filed: 10/06/2017

No. 16-20165
counsel (two motions), for summary judgment, for leave to expand the record,
and for a physical examination.
“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). In a civil matter, a
notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of the judgment or order
being appealed. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Morgan’s notices of appeal were
not filed within that period. See id. Although Morgan’s second notice of appeal
was filed within the 30-day period to request an extension of time based on
excusable neglect or good cause, see FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(5), we have not deemed
it as such a request because Morgan did provide any explanation in that
document for his untimely filing.
Since the filing of the notices of appeal in this case, the district court has
entered final judgment dismissing the complaint. Although an application for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis was submitted by Morgan within 30 days
of entry of the judgment, that document did not clearly notify the court or
opposing counsel of the taking of an appeal from that decision under the
circumstances of this case. See Fisher v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 759 F.2d 461,
464 n.2 (5th Cir. 1985); see also FED. R. APP. P. 3(c)(1)(B).
The appeal is DISMISSED. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 213-14. Morgan’s
motions for leave to file a supplemental reply brief; for suspension of the rules;
to substitute S. Abron for appellee Naik; and for an appeal conference are
DENIED.

2