J. Cox v. Lorie Davis, et al, No. 15-41094 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 15-41094 Document: 00513699735 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 15-41094 FILED September 30, 2016 J. L. COX, Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Plaintiff-Appellant v. LORIE DAVIS; CLINT MORRIS, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:13-CV-151 Before JOLLY, DAVIS and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * J. L. Cox, Texas prisoner # 732619, moves this court for authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing his civil rights suit. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By moving to proceed IFP in this court, Cox challenges 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). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 15-41094 Document: 00513699735 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2016 No. 15-41094 Cox filed his appeal more than 100 days after the district court entered judgment in favor of the defendants and dismissing the matter. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1) (setting a 30-day period for noticing an appeal). Prior to that time, Cox did not seek to enlarge the time to appeal, and he does not contend that he did not receive notice of the district court’s judgment. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(5)(A), (a)(6). Because this court lacks jurisdiction over the untimely appeal, see FED. R. APP. P. 4(a); In re Deepwater Horizon, 785 F.3d 1003, 1009 (5th Cir. 2015), the appeal does not involve legal points arguable on their merits and Cox’s motion to proceed IFP on appeal is therefore DENIED. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). His untimely appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1); Deepwater Horizon, 785 F.3d at 1009. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.