Gonzales v. Katragadda ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-20323
USDC No. 4:96-CV-3051
RAYMOND GONZALES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UPENDRA KATRAGADDA,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
--------------------
November 3, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
“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). In this prisoner civil rights case, the
district court entered the final judgment on December 23, 1997.
Thereafter, on April 7, 1998, plaintiff Raymond Gonzales filed a
notice of appeal and a motion for an extension of the time to
file the notice. The district court denied the motion on grounds
that it was not timely.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-20323
-2-
The time limitation for filing a notice of appeal is
jurisdictional. Robbins v. Maggio, 750 F.3d 405, 408 (5th Cir.
1985). Rule 4(a)(1), Fed. R. App. P., requires that the notice
of appeal in a civil action be filed within 30 days of entry of
the judgment. Rule 4(a)(5) provides that the district court may
extend the time for filing a notice of appeal upon a showing of
excusable neglect, if the appellant moves for such an extension
within 30 days after the expiration of the initial 30-day time
for appeal. Sanchez v. Board of Regents of Texas Southern
University, 625 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1980).
Since the final judgment in Gonzales’s case was entered on
December 23, 1997, the last day for filing a timely notice of
appeal was January 22, 1998. Thereafter, Gonzales had until
February 21, 1998, to file his motion for an extension of the
time in which to file his notice of appeal. Gonzales filed his
said motion more than six weeks too late. Furthermore, Gonzales
failed to file a notice of appeal from the district court's order
denying his untimely motion for an extension of the time for
filing a notice of appeal relative to the final judgment.
Accordingly, his motions for the appointment of counsel and for
the disclosure of information are DENIED and this appeal is
DISMISSED.
MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.