eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-07

Boyd v. Thomas ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 22-60485        Document: 00516811515             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/06/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________                              United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 22-60485                                    July 6, 2023
Summary Calendar
____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Dean C. Boyd,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Vickie Thomas; N.P. Miranda Shegog; P.A. Shauna
Nguyen; Shirley Harris; M.D. James Glisson; Sergeant
Williams; Officer Sanders; Willie Knighten,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:22-CV-113
______________________________
Before Dennis, Elrod, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Dean C. Boyd, a Mississippi prisoner, appeals the dismissal without
prejudice of his civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60485      Document: 00516811515            Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/06/2023
No. 22-60485
We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction, sua sponte, if
necessary. Mosley v. Cozby,
    813 F.2d 659
    , 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely
“notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v.
Russell,
    551 U.S. 205
    , 214 (2007). Boyd filed an “objection” to the final
judgment which challenged the correctness of that judgment. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 59(e). Such a pleading is commonly construed as a Rule 59(e)
motion if, as here, it was filed within the applicable 28-day time limit. See
Mangieri v. Clifton,
    29 F.3d 1012
    , 1015 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying the
former 10-day time limit for filing a Rule 59(e) motion); United States v.
Gallardo,
    915 F.2d 149
    , 150 n.2 (5th Cir. 1990) (liberally construing objections
as a motion for reconsideration in the context of the former 10-day time limit
for filing a Rule 59(e) motion).
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, the filing of certain
postjudgment motions, including a timely Rule 59(e) motion, renders a
notice of appeal ineffective until an order is entered disposing of the motion.
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (B)(i); see also Simmons v. Reliance
Standard Life Ins. Co. of Tex.,
    310 F.3d 865
    , 868 (5th Cir. 2002). Because the
district court has not ruled on Boyd’s constructive Rule 59(e) motion, his
notice of appeal is not yet effective, and this appeal is premature. See Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i); Burt v. Ware,
    14 F.3d 256
    , 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of allowing
the district court to rule on the Rule 59(e) motion. We hold the appeal in
abeyance until the notice of appeal becomes effective, and we retain
jurisdiction over the appeal except for the purposes of the limited remand.
The clerk of this court is instructed to process the appeal immediately upon
the return of the case from the district court.
LIMITED REMAND; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE.
2