Padilla v. Quintero ( 2022 )

Case: 21-40055 Document: 00516544178 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-40055 November 14, 2022
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Rosendo Padilla, Jr.,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Thomas Quintero,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:19-CV-119
Before Davis, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Rosendo Padilla, Jr., federal prisoner # 89203-179, appeals the
dismissal of his civil rights complaint and the denial of his motion to alter or
amend the judgment. He argues that the district court considered extraneous
documents and matters outside of the complaint, thereby triggering Federal
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-40055 Document: 00516544178 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2022
No. 21-40055
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) and requiring the defendant’s Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings to be treated as
one for summary judgment. Accordingly, he maintains that the district court
erred by granting the defendant’s motion without an evidentiary hearing
because there were still contestable issues of fact. Padilla further argues that
the district court erred by determining that the notice of appeal divested it of
jurisdiction to consider his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion.
Where, as here, a litigant files a timely Rule 59(e) motion and a notice
of appeal, the notice of appeal does not become effective until the entry of
the order disposing of the motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (B)(i);
Burt v. Ware, 14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, the district court
retained jurisdiction to dispose of Padilla’s Rule 59(e) motion. See Simmons
v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. of Tex., 310 F.3d 865, 868-70 (5th Cir. 2002);
Burt, 14 F.3d at 261. Accordingly, the district court erred in denying Padilla’s
Rule 59(e) motion for lack of jurisdiction.
The order of the district court denying the Rule 59(e) motion is
REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED for proper consideration.
Padilla’s motion to remand is DENIED as moot.
2