Case: 20-10109 Document: 00515755360 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 24, 2021
No. 20-10109 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Priscilla A. Ellis,
Petitioner—Appellant,
versus
William Barr, United States of America Attorney General; M. Carr,
FMC Carswell Warden; NFN Cohen, FMC Carswell Associate Warden;
NFN Frontera, Lt in Sis United States of America Government Employees
Unknown; Patrick Scruggs, Middle District of Florida AUSA,
Respondents—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:19-CV-1013
Before Jolly, Elrod, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Priscilla Ann Ellis appeals the district court’s rulings (1) severing her
civil rights actions challenging, respectively, her criminal convictions in the
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-10109 Document: 00515755360 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2021
No. 20-10109
Middle District of Florida and the conditions of her confinement in the
Northern District of Texas and (2) transferring her case to the Northern
District of Texas’s Forth Worth Division. She also moves for the
appointment of counsel to help her with potential appeals in Texas; for leave
to file supplemental exhibits; and for an en banc hearing.
“This [c]ourt must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own
motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987).
We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over Ellis’s appeal of the district
court’s transfer and severance orders, as those orders are neither final,
appealable decisions nor qualifying interlocutory orders nor reviewable
collateral orders. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 1292(a); Louisiana Real Estate
Appraisers Bd. v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 917 F.3d 389, 392 (5th Cir. 2019); In re
Rolls Royce Corp., 775 F.3d 671, 676 (5th Cir. 2014); Brinar v. Williamson, 245
F.3d 515, 517 (5th Cir. 2001); Matter of Lieb, 915 F.2d 180, 184-85 (5th Cir.
1990). In any event, Ellis has abandoned any argument that the district
court’s severance and transfer orders were erroneous by not briefing those
issues. See Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499 n.1 (5th
Cir. 2004).
The appeal is DISMISSED. Ellis’s motions for appointment of
counsel, leave to file supplemental exhibits, and an en banc hearing are
DENIED AS MOOT.
2