Kenisha Boyd v. TDCJ
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [17-40318 Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: WED , Judge: EBC , Judge: GJC [17-40318]
Date Filed: 09/18/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
KENISHA S. BOYD,
United States Court of Appeals
Fif h Circuit
September 18, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
Plaintiff - Appellant
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
Defendant - Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:15-CV-708
Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.
Kenisha S. Boyd brought suit against her former employer, the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”), under Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. The magistrate judge held a mediation conference and reported to
the district court that “the conference resulted in a settlement.” The district
court twice granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the proceedings to allow
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 09/18/2017
the parties to finalize the settlement agreement. In their second motion to stay,
the parties asserted that they were “waiting on the finalization of the State of
Texas settlement process before the release can be signed and a stipulation of
dismissal can be filed with the Court.” Boyd then moved the district court “to
determine that no settlement agreement yet exists in this case, and that the
purported settlement agreement . . . is not a valid and enforceable agreement.”
The district court denied her motion.
Boyd appeals the district court’s denial of her motion. She asserts that
this court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which
provides that “[t]he courts of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from
all final decisions of the district courts.” But the parties never filed a
stipulation of dismissal with the district court, and the district court did not
otherwise enter a final judgment resolving the dispute between the parties.
Boyd does not invoke the collateral order doctrine, and in any case the validity
of the settlement agreement is not “effectively unreviewable on appeal from a
final judgment.” See In re Deepwater Horizon, 793 F.3d 479, 484 (5th Cir. 2015)
(setting forth the three-pronged test to apply the collateral order doctrine).
Because Boyd does not appeal a final decision of the district court, we
DISMISS her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
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?