Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-21000/USCOURTS-ca5-03-21000-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-21000

Conference Calendar

 

TED LAWRENCE ROBERTSON,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 

 v.

HARRIS COUNTY TEXAS; CITY OF HOUSTON; HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT

ATTORNEY OFFICE; ROBERT E. ECKELS, Judge; LEE BROWN, Mayor; 

CHUCK ROSENTHAL, DA; C. O. BRADFORD, Chief of Police;

ELIHUE DODIER; EVA MCGREGOR-GUZMAN, Judge; BETH BARRON,

Assistant DA; TRACI BENNETT; ROGER HASEMAN; GEORGE GODWIN,

Judge; C. R. BARNES, Deputy Sheriff; BONNIE HELLUMS,

Judge; JAMES SQUIER, Judge; RHONDA DUCOTE; BARBARA JONES;

OLEN UNDERWOOD, Judge; URITA EMANUEL; ROBERT FLOWERS; 

KATHY BEER; WENDI AKINS; STEVEN PROMPH; ISMAEL F. FLORES, JR.;

MICHAEL PETERS, Judge; DIANE BULL, Judge,

 Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-03-CV-3353

--------------------

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ted Lawrence Robertson, Texas prisoner # 1175868, appeals

the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint

against approximately 25 state and county officials. This court

 Case: 03-21000 Document: 0051599057 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/20/2004
No. 03-21000

-2-

must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if

necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). 

A timely filed notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite

to appellate review. Dison v. Whitley, 20 F.3d 185, 186 (5th

Cir. 1994). 

More than ten days after the entry of judgment, but within

the 30-day time for filing a notice of appeal, Robertson filed a

“Motion to Rescind,” construed as a motion filed under 

FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b). Robertson simultaneously filed a “Notice

of Appeal,” which stated that Robertson wished to appeal the

district court’s judgment only in the event that his “Motion to

Rescind” was not granted. Thus, the primary relief sought in

Robertson’s “Motion to Rescind” and in his “Notice of Appeal” was

reconsideration of the district court’s judgment. Robertson’s

“Notice of Appeal” was not a sufficient notice of appeal, as it

did not clearly evince Robertson’s intent to appeal. See Mosley,

813 F.2d at 660. Because there was no timely notice of appeal,

this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal and it is

DISMISSED. See Mosley, 813 F.2d at 660-61. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.

 Case: 03-21000 Document: 0051599057 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/20/2004