Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10694/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10694-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

F I L E D

February 10, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10694

Summary Calendar

 

DALE ANDERSON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:02-CV-00157

USDC No. 4:02-CV-00158

USDC No. 4:02-CV-00159

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dale Anderson, Texas prisoner # 909781, appeals the denial

of his FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b) motion challenging the dismissal and

denials of his three consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2254 applications. 

The only issue before us is whether the district court abused its

discretion in denying Anderson’s Rule 60(b) motion. See Aucoin

v. K-Mart Apparel Fashion Corp., 943 F.2d 6, 8 (5th Cir. 1991).

 Case: 03-10694 Document: 0051502406 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2004
No. 03-10694

-2-

The sole purpose of Anderson’s Rule 60(b) motion was to

circumvent the jurisdictional problem caused by his failure to

file a timely notice of appeal from the judgment denying habeas

relief. A Rule 60(b) motion, however, is not a substitute for a

timely appeal. Dunn v. Cockrell, 302 F.3d 491, 493 (5th Cir.

2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1181 (2003). Moreover, the delay

in Anderson’s receipt of notice of the judgment denying habeas

relief does not qualify as an “extraordinary circumstance” under

Rule 60(b)(6). Although the time to file a notice of appeal had

expired when he received notice of the denial, Anderson failed to

take advantage of other remedies that were still available, such

as a motion for an extension of time or a motion to reopen the

time to file an appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(5) (motion for

an extension of time); FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(6) (motion to reopen

time to file notice of appeal).

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 03-10694 Document: 0051502406 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2004