Luna v. Granadas

Case: 25-40744 Document: 40-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/30/2026

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 25-40744 Summary Calendar FILED ____________ June 30, 2026 Lyle W. Cayce Larry Dean Luna, Clerk Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Veronica Granadas; Rhonda Williams, RN Nurse, Victoria County Jail Medical Department; Katrina Lawson; Robin DeLeon; Gayle Brumbelow; Machac Madison; Kourtney Roberts; Ashley Black, Nurse, Victoria County Jail Medical Department; Victoria County, Texas; Rhonda Ullman, Nurse; FNU Manchac, Nurse, Defendants—Appellees. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 6:21-CV-17 ______________________________ Before Davis, Jones, and Ho, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

Case: 25-40744 Document: 40-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/30/2026

No. 25-40744

Larry Dean Luna, Texas prisoner # 2349930, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging deliberate indifference to his medical needs. The district court dismissed the action with prejudice, and Luna’s ensuing appeal of that judgment was dismissed for want of prosecution. More than a year later, Luna moved the district court to reopen his § 1983 proceedings. The district court denied the motion, and Luna filed a notice of appeal.

“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).

Insofar as the operative notice of appeal evinces Luna’s intent to challenge the dismissal of his § 1983 action, it was filed untimely, thereby divesting us of appellate jurisdiction over the denial of § 1983 relief. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 583 U.S. 17, 19-20 (2017); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

Moreover, although the notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of the denial of Luna’s motion to reopen, even liberally construed, see Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992), that document fails to “designate the [denial of the motion to reopen]” as the ruling “from which the appeal is taken,” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B); see Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763, 765 (5th Cir. 2010). As a result, there is no effective notice of appeal from the denial of Luna’s motion to reopen, and we lack jurisdiction to review that ruling. See Smith, 502 U.S. at 248.

The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.