Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-17-30677/USCOURTS-ca5-17-30677-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
J. Boudoin
Appellee
R. McIntyre
Appellee
Newell Normand
Appellee
Jamal Perrier
Appellee
Gary Daniel Rodgers
Appellant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30677

Summary Calendar

GARY DANIEL RODGERS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

R. MCINTYRE, Deputy; JAMAL PERRIER, Deputy; J. BOUDOIN, Deputy; 

NEWELL NORMAND, Sheriff, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:15-CV-2642

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gerry Daniel Rodgers appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

lawsuit. The district court entered final judgment in favor of defendants on 

February 17, 2017. Rodgers’s deadline to file a notice of appeal was therefore 

March 20, 2017. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). It was not 

filed until September 26, 2017.

* 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

January 31, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 17-30677 Document: 00515293455 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/31/2020
No. 17-30677

2

Timely filing of a notice of appeal “is both mandatory and jurisdictional.”

Colbert v. Brennan, 752 F.3d 412, 416 (5th Cir. 2014). Without a timely notice, 

we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. Even though the Federal Rules direct that 

“[a]n appeal . . . may be taken only by filing a notice of appeal with the district 

clerk,” FED. R. APP. P. 3(a)(1), our Circuit has allowed “the timely filing of a 

document[] which is the equivalent of a notice of appeal” to suffice, Stevens v. 

Heard, 674 F.2d 320, 322 (5th Cir. 1982).

At a minimum, a notice of appeal must (1) specify the party taking the 

appeal; (2) identify the judgment being appealed; and (3) “name the court to 

which the appeal is taken.” FED. R. APP. P. 3(c)(1). We are to “liberally 

construe” these requirements, but “[t]his principle of liberal construction does 

not . . . excuse noncompliance with the letter” of the Rule. Smith v. Barry, 502 

U.S. 244, 248 (1992).

Here, the only document that could arguably serve as the equivalent of 

a timely notice of appeal is Rodgers’s “Motion and Order to Release Evidence,” 

filed on March 6, 2017. That motion names Rodgers as the moving party, but 

does not identify the judgment from which he intended to appeal, or the court 

to which he planned on taking the appeal. It is not enough to satisfy “only one 

of the three requirements of a notice of appeal.” Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763, 

766 (5th Cir. 2010). The Motion and Order to Release Evidence therefore did 

not serve as a timely notice, and we lack jurisdiction to hear Rodgers’s appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED.

Case: 17-30677 Document: 00515293455 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/31/2020