Abner v. Hazelwood

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
April 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40371
Conference Calendar
EUGENE SHANNON ABNER,
Plaintiff,
versus
ROBERT HAZELWOOD, Etc.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
ROBERT HAZELWOOD, Sergeant, Beto I,
Defendant-Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM PENA,
Movant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:01-CV-560
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
William Pena appeals the district court’s interlocutory
order denying his motion to intervene in the 42 U.S.C. § 1983

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-40371
-2-
suit filed by fellow inmate Eugene Shannon Abner. In his motion,
Pena sought leave to act as counsel on behalf of Abner pursuant
to a guardianship agreement and a power of attorney executed by
Abner.
The district court construed Pena’s motion as a motion to
intervene; however, Pena was not seeking to become a party to the
suit. See FED. R. CIV. P. 24. Instead, Pena’s motion is more
closely analogous to a motion to enroll as counsel. Pena has not
demonstrated that an order denying such a motion is an appealable
interlocutory order. See Briargrove Shopping Ctr. Joint Venture
v. Pilgrim Enter., Inc., 170 F.3d 536, 538 (5th Cir. 1999).
Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain his
appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.

-- 2 of 2 --