IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-11103
Summary Calendar
_____________________
THOMAS GIL STEWART,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MESQUITE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant,
CITY OF MESQUITE, TX, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:94-CV-877-T
_________________________________________________________________
August 28, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Thomas Gil Stewart (Texas prisoner # 571499) has filed an
appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his “John Doe”
defendants and a repetitive appeal from the denial of his many
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
motions for the appointment of counsel. Because the dismissal of
the John Does adjudicates the liability of fewer than all of the
parties and does not terminate the action, it is not appealable
unless certified by the district judge under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
Thompson v. Betts, 754 F.2d 1243, 1245 (5th Cir. 1985). There has
been no certification; thus, this court lacks appellate
jurisdiction to consider the dismissal of the John Does. Stewart’s
repetitive appeal from the denial of his motion for the appointment
of counsel is barred by the law-of-the-case doctrine. Chevron
U.S.A., Inc. v. Traillour Oil Co., 987 F.2d 1138, 1150 (5th Cir.
1993). This appeal is frivolous and is DISMISSED as such. 5th
Cir. R. 42.2.
Stewart’s motions for the appointment of counsel are DENIED.
We caution Stewart that any additional frivolous appeals filed
by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions.
To avoid sanctions, Stewart is further cautioned to review all
pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are
frivolous because they have been previously decided by this court.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
-2-