Princella Steels v. TDCJ, et al, No. 17-50558 (5th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Case: 17-50558 Document: 00514696065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 17-50558 Summary Calendar FILED October 24, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk PRINCELLA V. STEELS, Plaintiff-Appellant v. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DOCTOR FNU SCOTT, Dentist; DENTIST AT SKYVIEW, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:16-CV-466 Before DAVIS, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Princella V. Steels, Texas prisoner # 1926484, appeals the dismissal for failure to state a claim of her in forma pauperis, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit claiming that she received inadequate dental care and that the defendants failed to return to her three gold crowns. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). A timely notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional prerequisite when, as here, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 17-50558 Document: 00514696065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2018 No. 17-50558 the time limit is set by statute. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13, 17 (2017); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). Steels had to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of the May 11, 2017, order denying her Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. See § 2107(a); FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(4)(A)(iv). Because Steels filed her notice of appeal no earlier than June 15, 2017, her appeal is untimely, and we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Hamer, 138 S. Ct. at 17. Additionally, Steels’s motions for the appointment of counsel and a bench warrant, as well as her motions for leave to amend and an evidentiary hearing are denied. DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED. 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.