U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2025

Jordan v. Houston

Jordan v. Houston
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided November 6, 2025

Jordan v. Houston

Opinion

Case: 25-60248 Document: 26-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/06/2025

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-60248 Summary Calendar FILED November 6, 2025 ____________ Lyle W. Cayce Michael Lee Jordan, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Russell Houston, CID Officer; John Hunt, CID Director; John Doe, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:23-CV-190 ______________________________ Before Smith, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: * Michael Lee Jordan, Mississippi prisoner # 34318, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against, among others, Russell Houston and John Hunt. A magistrate judge, acting by consent, granted Houston’s and Hunt’s motion for summary judgment. Jordan now moves for this court to grant him leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) so that he may challenge the magistrate _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case: 25-60248 Document: 26-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/06/2025

No. 25-60248

judge’s ruling. The magistrate judge denied IFP status, concluding that Jordan had not filed a timely notice of appeal and, accordingly, could not show that his appeal was taken in good faith. By moving this court for leave to proceed IFP, Jordan is challenging the magistrate judge’s good-faith determination. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

An untimely notice of appeal in a civil case deprives this court of jurisdiction. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213-14 (2007). Because Jordan did not file a timely notice of appeal from the magistrate judge’s order granting summary judgment, this court lacks jurisdiction over the instant appeal. See id.; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The IFP motion is DENIED as moot.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.