Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03946/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03946-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3946

___________

Loran Stewart, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Jule Hanson; Janis Anderson; Dr. Clyde * [UNPUBLISHED]

Stephens; Dr. Anderson, Attendant *

Guard; Dr. Vandewege; Patt Adair; *

Dr. Kroeger; Dr. Aye Kihan; Terry *

Carlson; Joan Fabian; Tim Pawlenty; *

Dr. Troedson; Dr. Burkeholder; *

Jennifer Southwick, Sued as Jennefer *

Southwick; Thomas M. Peterson; Ms. *

Zebrasky; Terrain Pangerl; Connie *

Ring; Dan Hilleren; Corrections *

Medical Services; Pharmacorr, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: February 28, 2007

Filed: March 9, 2007

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

Appellate Case: 06-3946 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286510
-2-

PER CURIAM.

Former Minnesota prisoner Loran Stewart appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 41(b). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

A timely notice of appeal (NOA) is mandatory and jurisdictional, and this court

will raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte. See Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d

920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006). We find that the district court abused its discretion by

granting Stewart an extension to file his NOA. See Lowry v. McDonnell Douglas

Corp., 211 F.3d 457, 462 (8th Cir. 2000) (standard of review). A district court may

extend the time to file a NOA if a party so moves no later than thirty days after the

prescribed time expires, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i), which in this case would

be within sixty days, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); but the party must also show

excusable neglect or good cause, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii), an issue the court

did not discuss. We find that the reasons Stewart gave for requesting an extension did

not constitute good cause or excusable neglect. See Gibbons v. United States, 317

F.3d 852, 853-54 & n.3 (8th Cir. 2003) (discussing standards for finding good cause

and excusable neglect). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3946 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2007 Entry ID: 3286510