Esparza v. Partington ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Case: 19-10890     Document: 00515926049          Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/06/2021
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                             United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 19-10890                          July 6, 2021
    Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Dominique Esparza,
    Plaintiff—Appellant,
    versus
    Abe Partington; Dustin Koch; City of Waxahachie,
    Defendants—Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC No. 3:18-CV-1336
    Before Clement, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Dominique Esparza, currently Texas prisoner # 02239621, filed a 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     complaint while he was in pretrial detention arising from three
    2018 felony charges. He raised multiple claims arising from his unrelated
    2017 arrest on misdemeanor charges of resisting arrest and driving without a
    valid license. After dismissing the § 1983 case without prejudice for failure
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-10890      Document: 00515926049            Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/06/2021
    No. 19-10890
    to comply with a court order and for want of prosecution, the district court
    denied Esparza leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on the basis that an
    appeal would not be in good faith. Esparza now seeks leave to appeal IFP.
    If needed, we must sua sponte examine the basis for our jurisdiction.
    Perez v. Stephens, 
    784 F.3d 276
    , 280 (5th Cir. 2015). A timely notice of appeal
    is a jurisdictional requirement for an appeal in a civil matter. Bowles v. Russell,
    
    551 U.S. 205
    , 214 (2007). The notice of appeal in a civil action must be filed
    within 30 days of entry of the judgment. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2107
    (a); Fed. R. App.
    P. 4(a)(1)(A). Esparza did not file a timely appeal or request an extension of
    time under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A).
    A district court may reopen the time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(6). See
    Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Rule 4(a)(6) gives the district court the discretion
    to reopen the time to appeal if: (1) the court finds that the moving party did
    not receive notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry
    of the judgment sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry; (2) the
    motion seeking relief under Rule 4(a)(6) is filed within 180 days after the
    judgment is entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice
    under Rule 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier; and (3) the court finds
    that no party would be prejudiced by reopening the appeal period. Fed. R.
    App. P. 4(a)(6).
    Here, the untimely notice of appeal filed by Esparza arguably could be
    construed as a motion to reopen under Rule 4(a)(6). Thus, the action should
    be remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of deciding whether,
    in light of that motion, the time to file the notice of appeal should be reopened
    under Rule 4(a)(6). After issuing its ruling, the district court shall return the
    case to this court for further proceedings or dismissal, as appropriate.
    LIMITED REMAND.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-10890

Filed Date: 7/6/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/6/2021