IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI WESTERN DIVISION

JAMES C. WINDING PETITIONER

VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-29-DCB-FKB

MARC MCLURE, et al. RESPONDENTS

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion [31] entitled “Motion for Emergency Appeal Bond to be Release[d] on My Own Recognizance,” Motion [34] entitled “Motion to Embrace Order to Rule on Writ of Habeas Corpus for Criminal Negligence by Adams County, Circuit Court – Failure to Legally Charge for Said Offense of Sexual Battery,” and Motion [35] entitled “Petition to Appoint the Attorney General” filed on May 31, 2023. Having reviewed the Motions [31], [34], and [35], the Court finds that these Motions should be denied. On May 2, 2023, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order [11] and Final Judgment [12] dismissing this civil action. Petitioner appealed that decision. Pet’r’s Not. of Appeal [21]. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s appeal on July 17, 2023. See Winding v. McClure, No. 23-60252 (5th Cir. July 17, 2023) (Certified Copy of USCA J./Mandate [37] at 1). Because the appeal has been dismissed and the instant civil action remains closed, and the Motions [31], [34], and [35] cannot be construed in a way that relief is possible, these motions are properly considered “meaningless, unauthorized motion[s].” See Winding v. King,

(5th Cir. Apr. 23, 2010) (citing United States v. Early,

(5th Cir. 1994) (holding that a motion filed in a closed case is to be considered “a meaningless, unauthorized motion”)). The Court therefore is without jurisdictional bases to consider the merits of Petitioner’s Motions [31], [34], and [35]. See id.; Mayberry v. Stephens,

(5th Cir. 2014) (citing Early,

). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner’s Motions [31], [34], and [35] are denied.

SO ORDERED, this the 26th day of July, 2023.

s/David Bramlette UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2