U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 2026

Mirelez v. Llano County, Texas

Mirelez v. Llano County, Texas
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided February 5, 2026
Mirelez v. Llano County, Texas

Opinion

Case: 25-50356 Document: 44-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/05/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals

____________ Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 25-50356 February 5, 2026

Summary Calendar

Lyle W. Cayce ____________ Clerk

Adam Mirelez,

Plaintiff—Appellant, versus

Llano County, Texas; Llano County Sheriff’s Office; Williamson County Sheriff’s Office; Caleb Garza, Williamson County Sheriff’s Deputy; Rickey Colley, Williamson County Sheriff’s Lieutenant,

Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:23-CV-1117

______________________________

Before Elrod, Chief Judge, and Jones and Higginson, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: *

Adam Mirelez, Texas prisoner # 2413581, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal. By moving this court for leave to proceed IFP, Mirelez is challenging the district court’s determination that Case: 25-50356 Document: 44-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/05/2026

No. 25-50356 his appeal is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

“This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). 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 Mirelez did not file a timely notice of appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint or the district court’s denial of his post-judgment motion, 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. Mirelez’s motions for production of documents and for the appointment of counsel are DENIED.

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.