Case: 22-40180 Document: 00516485618 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/27/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 27, 2022
No. 22-40180
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Thomas H. Clay,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Janis Hanson, NP; Dr. Georgia Nehotebah, FNP/CMC; Dr.
Rivers; Bryan Edlier, TDCK-Executive Director; Bryan
Collier,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:20-CV-19
Before Elrod, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Thomas H. Clay, Texas prisoner # 1124123, is a sanctioned litigant
who previously has accumulated three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). He
filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, which remains pending in the district court.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-40180 Document: 00516485618 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/27/2022
No. 22-40180
Clay moves this court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal
the district court’s interlocutory order denying a default judgment.
Clay challenges the determination that he was not entitled to a default
judgment. He contends, inter alia, that the defendants did not timely respond
to his suit and that the district court denied his motions for a default judgment
without considering all of the relevant filings. Clay further asserts that he is
under imminent danger of physical injury or death. Any argument as to the
denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) is not before
this court because he did not appeal its disposition. See Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Fiess v. State Farm Lloyds, 392 F.3d 802, 806 & nn.11-12 (5th
Cir. 2004).
This court must examine the basis of its appellate jurisdiction, on its
own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987).
Courts of appeal have jurisdiction over appeals from final decisions under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, particular interlocutory decisions under 28 U.S.C. § 1292, and
partial judgments certified as final under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
54(b). United States v. Powell, 468 F.3d 862, 863 (5th Cir. 2006). Also, courts
of appeal have jurisdiction over certain decisions under the collateral order
doctrine. Martin v. Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476, 481-82 (5th Cir. 2010).
This appeal does not fall within any of the aforementioned categories.
The denial of a motion for a default judgment is not an appealable order. See
Adult Film Ass’n of America, Inc. v. Thetford, 776 F.2d 113, 115 (5th Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, the instant appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION. The motion to proceed IFP is DENIED.
2