Muse v. Aranda

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-20378 Conference Calendar AARON LAMON MUSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus GEORGE ARANDA; ELLIOTT WILSON; KENNETH REAGANS; GLENDA RANDLE; MARGO GREEN; GARY J. GOMEZ, Defendants-Appellees. -------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-99-CV-1970 -------------------- June 14, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Aaron Muse, Texas prisoner # 490380, appeals the district court’s interlocutory order in which the court denied Muse’s motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or a preliminary injunction, his motions for the production of documents and to compel the production of documents, and his motion for the entry of a default judgment. This court must sua sponte examine the basis of its jurisdiction, even if not raised by the parties. Mosley v. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. No. 00-20378 -2- Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Muse’s motion for a TRO and his discovery motions. See Matter of Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 183 (5th Cir. 1990); Texaco, Inc. v. Louisiana Land and Exploration Co., 995 F.2d 43, 43 (5th Cir. 1993); see also 28 U.S.C. 1292. Appellate jurisdiction also does not exist to review the denial of his motion for the entry of a default judgment. See Adult Film Ass'n of America, Inc. v. Thetford, 776 F.2d 113, 115 (5th Cir. 1985). The denial of his request for a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion. Black Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Dallas, 905 F.2d 63, 65 (5th Cir. 1990). Muse’s appeal from the denial of his motion for a TRO, his discovery motions, and his motion for a default judgment is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. The denial of his motion for a preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED.