Murray v. Porter, et al

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
June 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-41347
Conference Calendar
JERRY W. MURRAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BOBBY PORTER; STEVE GAMBLE; HOWARD BALDWIN;
JO ALENE KIRKEL; PAUL K. RILEY; ELIZABETH HERNANDEZ;
JOHN CORNYN, Attorney General, State of Texas,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:02-CV-176-TJW
--------------------
Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerry W. Murray filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
complaint and an application for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) in the district court. The district court
entered an order denying Murray’s IFP motion and Murray now
appeals from that order. Subsequent to the district court’s
denial of Murray’s IFP application, Murray paid the district

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-41347
-2-
court filing fees and costs. On appeal, he seeks to have the
district court’s IFP denial vacated, to be found indigent, and
to have his filing fees and costs reimbursed to him.
Whether an appeal is moot is a jurisdictional matter because
it implicates the Article III requirement that there be a live
case or controversy. Dailey v. Vought Aircraft Co., 141 F.3d
224, 227 (5th Cir. 1998). By paying the filing fee in the
district court, Murray rendered this appeal moot. Accordingly,
the appeal is dismissed. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Murray also moves
to have his appellate filing fees reimbursed. That motion is
denied.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF APPELLATE
FILING FEES DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --