Case: 22-40053 Document: 00516354798 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 13, 2022
No. 22-40053 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Darrell Lenard Bates,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:20-CR-58-1
Before Smith, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Darrell Lenard Bates filed an interlocutory appeal from the magistrate
judge’s denial of his pro se motion to quash an indictment charging him with
failing to register as a sex offender. Counsel moved to withdraw, and Bates
moved for the appointment of substitute counsel.
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-40053 Document: 00516354798 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/13/2022
No. 22-40053
It is the duty of this court to raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte, if
necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). As an initial
matter, Bates’s pro se motion to quash was denied as moot by the magistrate
judge. In expanding the duties of magistrate judges under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
“Congress made clear that . . . the magistrate [judge] acts subsidiary to and
only in aid of the district court. Thereafter, the entire process takes place
under the district court’s total control and jurisdiction.” United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 681 (1980). Thus, we neither monitor nor supervise
the work of magistrate judges to whom cases are referred under § 636(b). If
Bates is dissatisfied with the magistrate judge’s ruling on his motion to quash
the indictment, he should direct his complaints to the district court judge, in
this case, Judge Jeremy D. Kernodle.
Additionally, the denial of a motion to quash an indictment prior to
entry of final judgment is typically not an order over which a court of appeals
would have jurisdiction; as a general rule, we lack jurisdiction over an
interlocutory motion such as this. See Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651,
663 (1977); United States v. Miller, 952 F.2d 866, 874 (5th Cir. 1992). The
appeal is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED; motions to withdraw and to appoint
substitute counsel DENIED as moot.
2