United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT August 10, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-41250
Summary Calendar
ROGER D. WOODS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
(4:03-CV-99-RAS-DDB)
Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This interlocutory pro se appeal by Roger D. Woods, Texas
prisoner # 907939, is from the denial of a motion for a preliminary
injunction in his federal habeas proceeding. Concomitantly, Woods
seeks a certificate of appealability (COA), and he has filed a
motion to supplement the record.
Woods has not established that he satisfied the four necessary
factors for obtaining a preliminary injunction. See Lakedreams v.
Taylor, 932 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1991). Consequently, the
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request
for an injunction. See White v. Carlucci, 862 F.2d 1209, 1211 (5th
Cir. 1989).
As for Woods’ COA request, a COA is necessary only to appeal
from a “final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the
detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State
court”. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). The current
proceeding is an interlocutory appeal brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1292; therefore, a final order has not been rendered. In short,
a COA is not required to pursue the injunction denial.
Because the material that Woods seeks to submit in his motion
to supplement was not presented to the district court, his motion
to supplement is DENIED. See United States v. Flores, 887 F.2d
543, 546 (5th Cir. 1989); see also Strain v. Harrelson Rubber Co.,
742 F.2d 888, 889-90 n.2 (5th Cir. 1984) (appellate court “do[es]
not sit to receive new evidence”).
Woods’ appeal is frivolous; accordingly, it is DISMISSED
pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
2