Mohammed Abdallah Omran v. Steve Prator, et al, No. 17-30680 (5th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 17-30680 Document: 00514549500 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/11/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-30680 Summary Calendar FILED July 11, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk MOHAMMED AHMED HASSAN ABDALLAH OMRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v. STEVE PRATOR; ROBERT WYCHE; DIRECTOR HICKS; CHAPLAIN WHITTIKER, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:14-CV-2426 Before BENAVIDES, SOUTHWICK, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Mohammed Ahmed Hassan Abdallah Omran asserted claims based on the denial of his request for kosher or halal food while he was detained in the Caddo Correctional Center, and we affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of all defendants. See Omran v. Prator, 674 F. App’x 353, 354-55 (5th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 74 (2017). 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-30680 Document: 00514549500 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/11/2018 No. 17-30680 Following that appeal, Omran filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for relief from the judgment in order to amend his complaint to assert an equal protection claim. Omran now appeals the denial of that motion. Omran’s arguments regarding his entitlement to Rule 60 relief were not presented to the district court and are raised for the first time on appeal. He has therefore waived all of his arguments on appeal, and we perceive no extraordinary circumstances that might justify consideration of those arguments. See Morris v. Livingston, 739 F.3d 740, 752-53 (5th Cir. 2014); Mick Haig Prods. E.K. v. Does 1-670, 687 F.3d 649, 650, 652 (5th Cir. 2012). AFFIRMED. 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.