Filed: Feb. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 17-11036 Document: 00514367228 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 17-11036 Fifth Circuit FILED February 28, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ANTONIO FREEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, versus 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 No. 1:17-CV-111 Before SMI
Summary: Case: 17-11036 Document: 00514367228 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2018 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals No. 17-11036 Fifth Circuit FILED February 28, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ANTONIO FREEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, versus 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 No. 1:17-CV-111 Before SMIT..
More
Case: 17-11036 Document: 00514367228 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/28/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
No. 17-11036
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 28, 2018
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
ANTONIO FREEMAN,
Petitioner−Appellant,
versus
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
No. 1:17-CV-111
Before SMITH, WIENER, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Antonio Freeman, Texas prisoner #1512080, moves to dismiss without
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 17-11036 Document: 00514367228 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/28/2018
No. 17-11036
prejudice his interlocutory appeal from the denial of his motion to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the district court in connection with his 28 U.S.C. §
2254 proceedings. Freeman’s payment of the $5.00 filing fee rendered moot
the issue of his IFP status in the district court, as his case was not dismissed
and is proceeding to resolution there.
The IFP order in the instant case “is not appealable as a final judgment
because it did not end the litigation on the merits.” Thompson v. Drewry,
138 F.3d 984, 986 (5th Cir. 1998).
The motion to dismiss the appeal is GRANTED without prejudice.
2