Crawford v. Perkins

Case: 24-20521 Document: 120-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/20/2026

United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

____________

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

No. 24-20521

____________ FILED

March 20, 2026

consolidated with Lyle W. Cayce

_____________ Clerk

No. 25-20038

_____________

Kedric Crawford,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

versus

Bryce Perkins; Nathaniel Brown; Alyssa McDaniel;

Ivan Martinez; Bret Rasch; Kevin Dunlap; Shane

Michael Dunlap; Keith Dougherty; Harris County; Ed

Gonzalez, Sheriff; Laxman Sundar, Doctor; City of

Baytown; Samuel Serrett,

Defendants—Appellees.

______________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:20-CV-3003

USDC No. 4:21-CV-624

USDC No. 4:21-CV-647

______________________________

Case: 24-20521 Document: 120-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/20/2026

24-20521

c/w No. 25-20038

Before Jones, Duncan, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam: *

This appeal concerns an action brought by Plaintiff-Appellant Kedric

Crawford, following a brutal encounter with Baytown City police.

Crawford’s complaint alleges he was stopped at a gas station, looking for a

safe place to set his GPS, while he was traveling to visit his mother in

Houston, Texas. While he was stopped, Crawford was approached by

Defendant Officer Teddy Sims. 1 Crawford then alleges that the situation

devolved and a series of incidents resulted in his being beaten by responding

officers, culminating in serious injuries. Despite his contention that he did

not resist or commit a crime, Crawford was arrested following the struggle.

Following this encounter, Crawford filed three actions in the district court.

The cases were later consolidated. In a protracted series of events, Crawford

then struggled to meet court deadlines and failed to serve involved parties,

which resulted in the dismissal of all parties with the exception of Defendant

Teddy Sims. 2 Crawford now appears to challenge the dismissal of those

parties, despite the fact that their dismissal took place almost four years ago.

Lacking jurisdiction to consider his appeal, we DISMISS this action.

I

Crawford initially brought three separate lawsuits against defendants

in district court. See (1) Crawford v. City of Bayton, et al., S.D.T.X. No. 4:20-

cv-3003; (2) Crawford v. Harris County and Sheriff Ed Gonzalez, S.D.T.X.

_____________________

*

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

1

The claims against Officer Sims have not been dismissed by the district court, and

the claims against him remain unresolved. He is not a party to this appeal.

2

Sims was criminally charged in Texas state court for his involvement in this

incident. The charges were later dismissed.

2

Case: 24-20521 Document: 120-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/20/2026

24-20521

c/w No. 25-20038

No. 4:21-cv-624; (3) Crawford v. Dougherty, et al., S.D.T.X. No. 4:21-cv-647.

District court Judge Lynn Hughes ordered that the three actions be

consolidated. After Crawford filed a voluntary dismissal of one defendant,

withdrew that dismissal, and attempted to voluntarily dismiss that defendant

again, the district court issued an order to show cause requiring Appellant’s

counsel to appear in person to justify her concurrent filing of several lawsuits.

Following the show-cause hearing, Appellant’s counsel was sanctioned for

her overlapping, contradictory, and perplexing filings. Appellant was then

instructed to consolidate the three lawsuits into one single complaint by

April 2, 2021, and to serve all defendants by April 30, 2021. 3 The district

court’s order specifically warned Appellant that if any defendants were not

served by the deadline that they “may be dismissed with prejudice.”

On April 1, 2021, one day before the amended complaint deadline,

Appellant moved for an extension of time to file his consolidated complaint.

That motion was granted, and the deadline was extended to April 23, 2021.

Appellant then missed the April 23 deadline, and the district court issued

another order to show cause. Appellant’s counsel explained, in an untimely

motion for extension of time, that she had a previously scheduled surgery and

was on “very strong pain medications” and needed more time as a result.

The district court noted that counsel’s excuse was “poor at best” but to

prevent Crawford from being punished by “his own counsel’s

shortcomings,” reset the deadline to file his amended complaint to July 7,

2021, and ordered that Appellant serve all defendants (or re-serve any

previously served defendants) by October 5, 2021. Appellant filed amended

_____________________

3

The consolidated complaint, not filed until July 7, 2021, is difficult to follow.

Appellant brought numerous claims, including excessive force under the Fourth and

Fourteenth Amendments, as well as a Monell liability claim against the City of Baytown.

See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).

3

Case: 24-20521 Document: 120-1 Page: 4 Date Filed: 03/20/2026

24-20521

c/w No. 25-20038

complaints on July 6 and 7, 2021, but failed to serve multiple defendants by

the October 5 deadline. 4 Defendant Harris County then filed a motion to

dismiss Appellant’s Monell claim under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6).

On November 2, almost a month after the October 5 deadline,

Appellant filed a third motion for extension of time to serve the defendants,

highlighting a passage from an e-notice regarding the district court’s order

setting the October 5 deadline. Appellant’s counsel claimed that she misread

the e-notice and understood the deadline to be November 4, instead of

October 5. The district court issued an order to file, requiring Appellant to

file all executed returns of service and waivers in his possession by

November 7. Also on November 2, Defendant-Appellee Dr. Sundar filed a

motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5), 12(b)(6) and 4(m). 5

Similar motions for dismissal based on defective service were filed by other

defendants. On November 7, three days after the date Appellant’s counsel

claimed she thought was the deadline for service of process, Appellant filed

a “supplement” to his motion for extension of time, wherein he requested

one additional business day to serve defendants. Appellant filed a “notice of

compliance with order[,]” despite the fact that multiple defendants remained

unserved, as required by the district court’s order. The district court denied

Appellant’s request for an extension of time to “serve at least ten of the

defendants—28 days after the deadline to serve ha[d] passed.” Following a

flurry of filings of motions to dismiss, on December 16, 2021, the district

_____________________

4

Throughout Appellant’s brief he claims, without support or specifying which

defendants he is referencing, that multiple defendants were in fact served by the district

court’s deadline.

5

Dr. Sundar’s motion indicated that service by Appellant had indeed been

attempted, but that such service was “untimely and defective.” Exhibits to Dr. Sundar’s

motion reveal that Appellant allegedly attempted to serve him via FedEx.

4

Case: 24-20521 Document: 120-1 Page: 5 Date Filed: 03/20/2026

24-20521

c/w No. 25-20038

court dismissed defendants Samuel Serrett, Shane Dunlap, Kevin Dunlap,

the City of Baytown, Keith Dougherty, Nathanial Brown, Alyssa McDaniel,

Ivan Martinez, Bryce Perkins, Brett Rasch, Harris County, Dr. Laxman

Sundar, and Ed Gonzalez. Appellant then filed a motion requesting that

Judge Hughes, who had been presiding over the case, recuse himself due to

personal bias.

On March 14, 2022, the district court stayed the case pending a

criminal investigation into Officer Sims. On February 13, 2023, the case was

reassigned from Judge Hughes to Judge Tipton. On March 20, 2024, the

district court granted Appellant’s second motion to reopen the case.

Appellant then resumed his pattern of requesting extensions for court-set

deadlines. Appellant finally filed a motion for partial summary judgment on

the issue of Defendant Sim’s qualified immunity. Defendant Sims filed a

cross-motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims against him.

After Sims filed his reply to Appellant’s opposition to his motion for

summary judgment, Appellant apparently intended to file a notice of appeal

of the district court’s December 16, 2021 order dismissing all remaining

defendants except Sims. Confusingly, however, in the body of Appellant’s

notice of appeal, he indicated that he intended to appeal the court’s October

2024 order granting his own unopposed motion to sever the remaining

defendants. Appellant then filed a motion for an extension of time to file

another appeal. The district court granted Appellant’s motion, finding

excusable neglect related to his counsel’s inability to access CM/ECF from

home. Appellant then filed a “supplemented notice of appeal,” in which he

attempted to appeal “orders granting defendants’ . . . motions to dismiss” as

well as other orders. Appellant has not clarified which orders he intended to

appeal.

5

Case: 24-20521 Document: 120-1 Page: 6 Date Filed: 03/20/2026

24-20521

c/w No. 25-20038

II

For this court to have jurisdiction over a collateral appeal, the

appealed order must “(1) conclusively determine the disputed question; (2)

resolve an issue that is completely separate from the merits of the action; and

(3) would be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.”

Troice v. Proskauer Rose, L.L.P., 816 F.3d 341, 345 (5th Cir. 2016) (quoting

Walker v. U.S. Dep’t of Hous. & Urb. Dev., 99 F.3d 761, 766 (5th Cir. 1996)).

An appellant must ordinarily issue an appeal of a district court’s order within

thirty days. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). 6

III

This case involves two notices of appeal from various orders. 7 The

district court had jurisdiction over the alleged federal offenses under

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Crawford filed untimely appeals on February 7, 2025, and

February 10, 2025. Due to the vague nature of the appeals, and the amount

of time that has elapsed between the notices of appeal and the district court

orders, our court is without jurisdiction.

At the outset, we do not know which order Appellant intended to ap-

peal. In his opening brief’s jurisdictional statement, Appellant claims that

this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over the district court’s

“May 15, 2024” order dismissing “several of [Appellant’s] claims with

_____________________

6

An appellant may file a notice of appeal within sixty days if one of the parties is an

agent of the United States. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

7

Appellant first noticed his appeal as to the district court’s order granting his

motion to sever defendants. On appeal, Appellant claims he amended his appeal to include

the dismissal of all defendants, with the exception of Sims, for failure to serve under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 4(m). A review of the record indicates that Appellant did not intend to appeal

the district court’s order granting his motion to sever, but no further clarification was

received by Appellant.

6

Case: 24-20521 Document: 120-1 Page: 7 Date Filed: 03/20/2026

24-20521

c/w No. 25-20038

prejudice.” A review of the district court’s docket reveals that the only order

entered on that date was one striking Appellant’s motion to amend for failure

to comply with the district court’s local rules. On appeal, Appellant’s brief-

ing indicates an attempt to appeal the district court’s order denying his mo-

tion for leave to amend, even though that motion was stricken from the rec-

ord. 8

Another problem with Appellant’s disjointed appeal is that his first

notice of appeal indicates he is appealing an entirely different order, namely

the district court’s October 16, 2024 “final judgment” granting his unop-

posed motion to sever defendants. Confusingly, Appellant’s motion for an

extension of time to file his appeal sheds no light on this apparent mistake.

Appellant’s arguments on appeal further confuse the situation—he argues

that the district court abused its discretion under Rule 4(m), indicating that

he is appealing the district court’s December 2021 dismissal of multiple de-

fendants. However, he then shifts gears to discuss the district court’s denial

of his motion for leave to amend in May 2024, despite the fact that there is

no appealable order to be found on that date. 9 Appellant’s reply brief likewise

reveals no helpful clues.

Appellant’s notices of appeal reference 1) the December 2021 order,

2) a November 2021 order denying Appellant’s motion for extension of time

to serve certain defendants, and 3) a “final judgment” dismissing the above-

_____________________

8

Appellant’s motion was stricken for failure to file a certificate of service. The

district court invited Appellant to refile his motion in accordance with its rules, but he never

did. The motion was not denied based on its content, but rather, its form.

9

The only orders found in May 2024 are 1) the previously discussed order striking

Appellant’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint for failure to include a certificate

of service, and 2) an order denying Appellant’s motion for reconsideration of that first

motion. It is important to underscore that the district court, in its order denying

Appellant’s motion for reconsideration, again expressly invited him to refile: “Plaintiff may

refile the Motion in accordance with the rules.” Again, he never did.

7

Case: 24-20521 Document: 120-1 Page: 8 Date Filed: 03/20/2026

24-20521

c/w No. 25-20038

mentioned defendants, which appears to be another reference to the Decem-

ber 2021 order. Each of the orders referenced by Appellant in his notice of

appeal are over four years old.

For our court to have jurisdiction over an appeal, an appellant must

file a notice within thirty days of the appealed order, unless the appeal in-

volves the United States. See Edwards v. 4JLJ, L.L.C., 976 F.3d 463, 465-66

(5th Cir. 2020) (finding a lack of jurisdiction where an appellant failed to file

an appeal within thirty days of the relevant order). See also Fed. R. App.

P. 4 (“the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district

clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed.”)

“[A] notice of appeal must specify the party or parties taking the ap-

peal; designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed; and

name the court to which the appeal is taken.” Kinsley v. Lakeview Reg’l Med.

Ctr. LLC, 570 F.3d 586, 589 (5th Cir. 2009). Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(7) empha-

sizes that “[a]n appeal must not be dismissed for informality of form or title

of the notice of appeal, or for failure to name a party whose intent to appeal

is otherwise clear from the notice.” Id. (citing Turnbull v. United States, 929

F.2d 173, 176–77 (5th Cir. 1991)) (affording liberal construction of Rule

3(c) where the intent to appeal is apparent and there is no prejudice to the

adverse party.). “According to the Supreme Court, however, ‘this principle

of liberal construction does not . . . excuse noncompliance with the Rule’ and

because ‘the purpose of [Rule 3] is to ensure that the filing provides sufficient

notice to other parties and the courts,’ ‘the notice afforded by the document,

not [a] litigant’s motivation in filing it, determines the document’s suffi-

ciency as a notice of appeal.’” Id. (citation modified) (quoting Smith v. Barry,

502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992)).

A

In his notice of appeal, Appellant states that he appeals the orders

granting multiple defendants’ motions to dismiss. An order entered by the

8

Case: 24-20521 Document: 120-1 Page: 9 Date Filed: 03/20/2026

24-20521

c/w No. 25-20038

district court on December 12, 2021, granted the motions to dismiss brought

by the defendants listed by Appellant. The December 2021 order is, there-

fore, likely what Appellant was referencing in his notice of appeal.

Obviously, December 21, 2021, was well over thirty days before Ap-

pellant filed his latest notice of appeal on February 10, 2025. Even if our court

were to stop the clock to account for an administrative stay, which lasted

from March 14, 2022, to March 20, 2024, over a year would have elapsed

between the entry of the order and the notice of the appeal. Therefore, this

court lacks jurisdiction to review the order dismissing the City of Baytown,

Samuel Serrett, Shane Michael Dunlap, Alyssa McDaniel, Samuel, Keith

Dougherty, Nathanial Brown, Alyssa McDaniel, Ivan Martinez, Bryce Per-

kins, Brett Rasch, and Kevin Dunlap, Harris County, Ed Gonzalez, and Dr.

Sundar.

The order denying Appellant’s motion for extension of time to serve

the above-named defendants was entered on November 10, 2021. For the

foregoing reasons, this court lacks jurisdiction to review it. See Edwards, 976

F.3d at 465-66; see also Fed. R. App. P. 4.

In his notice of appeal, Appellant also references a “final judgment”

dismissing the above-named defendants. However, after reviewing the rec-

ord, there is no “final judgment” that fits Appellant’s description.

Having construed Appellant’s appeal as liberally as possible, there is

still no order in the record that purports to be the “final judgment” he ap-

peals. Further, Appellant’s first notice of appeal clearly states that he is ap-

pealing the district court’s order granting his unopposed motion to sever the

defendants. That is the only order that Appellant successfully identifies for

this court’s review. It was a costly mistake, as there remain no orders or judg-

ments that one could reasonably construe as covered by Appellant’s notice

of appeal.

9

Case: 24-20521 Document: 120-1 Page: 10 Date Filed: 03/20/2026

24-20521

c/w No. 25-20038

B

On appeal, Appellant, seemingly aware that his arguments are failing,

attempts to blame the referee. Appellant claims that Judges Hughes’s “pat-

tern of bias and procedural and unfairness has been repeatedly condemned

by this court.” Appellant then accuses Judge Hughes of personal bias, and

cites to an online article in which Judge Hughes made a seemingly “demean-

ing” comment directed at a female prosecutor. Despite these claims, the in-

stant record reveals that the district court was more than fair with Appellant

throughout its proceedings. The record shows Judge Hughes granted three

of Appellant’s motions for extension of time to serve the defendants. Fur-

ther, following Appellant’s motion for Judge Hughes’s recusal, Judge Drew

Tipton was reassigned to the case in July of 2023. “[B]ias by an adjudicator

is not lightly established.” Valley v. Rapides Par. Sch. Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1052

(5th Cir. 1997). Courts ordinarily “presume that public officials have

properly discharged their official duties.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899,

909 (1997) (citation modified). General allegations of bias or prejudice are

insufficient to establish a bias rising to constitutional violation. See Aetna Life

Ins. Co. v. Lavoie, 475 U.S. 813, 821 (1986).

The record reveals that Judge Hughes was fair but firm with Appel-

lant’s counsel. The show-cause hearings, and indeed the entire record, re-

veal successive excuses offered by Appellant’s counsel that were accepted by

the district court, followed by inexplicable periods of inactivity. Appellant

had over six months to serve defendants, and yet somehow, failed to do so at

every opportunity. Appellant’s counsel revealed, through her actions, that

she is either unfit or unwilling to handle this case.

IV

From the start, this case has been plagued with errors. From its first

filings at the district court, when Appellant inexplicably filed three

concurrent lawsuits stemming from the same incident, to Appellant’s failure

10

Case: 24-20521 Document: 120-1 Page: 11 Date Filed: 03/20/2026

24-20521

c/w No. 25-20038

to serve multiple defendants (despite being given over six months to do so)

and, finally, to an appeal so vague it is impossible to determine what exactly

is being appealed, our court must conclude it lacks jurisdiction.

* * *

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED for

want of jurisdiction.

11