Filed: Feb. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 15-11020 Document: 00513868939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 15-11020 Fif h Circuit FILED Summary Calendar February 9, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce SAMSON M. LOYNACHAN, Clerk Petitioner-Appellant v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:1
Summary: Case: 15-11020 Document: 00513868939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2017 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 15-11020 Fif h Circuit FILED Summary Calendar February 9, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce SAMSON M. LOYNACHAN, Clerk Petitioner-Appellant v. LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:15..
More
Case: 15-11020 Document: 00513868939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/09/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 15-11020
Fif h Circuit
FILED
Summary Calendar February 9, 2017
Lyle W. Cayce
SAMSON M. LOYNACHAN, Clerk
Petitioner-Appellant
v.
LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:15-CV-708
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Samson M. Loynachan, Texas prisoner #1789266, who stands convicted
of murder, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion to stay his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceeding so that
he could exhaust his state court remedies. He contends that the district court
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 15-11020 Document: 00513868939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/09/2017
No. 15-11020
abused its discretion in denying his motion, arguing that he did not engage in
dilatory tactics in the state courts.
Loynachan’s motion for a COA is DENIED AS UNNECESSARY as no
COA is required to review the district court’s ruling on this non-merits issue.
See Young v. Stephens,
795 F.3d 484, 494 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S.
Ct. 1453 (2016). His appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, however,
because the district court’s order is not immediately appealable as it is neither
a final order nor an appealable collateral order. See Grace v. Vannoy,
826 F.3d
813, 815-21 (5th Cir. 2016); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292; see also Mohawk Indus.,
Inc. v. Carpenter,
558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009);
Young, 795 F.3d at 494-95.
2