IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-30564

Summary Calendar

CLAY RIGGS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

POLICE DEPARTMENT WINN PARISH; CRAWFORD JORDAN; STACY 

JOHNSON; JEREMY UNDERWOOD; STATE OF LOUISIANA; OFFICER 

HAGGAN; OFFICER WOMACK; KELLEY FANNIN,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:16-CV-1134

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

In August 2016, Clay Riggs, while a pre-trial detainee, filed a 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1983 complaint against the Winn Parish Sheriff’s Department, various 

employees of that department, and the State of Louisiana, alleging that certain

defendants violated his constitutional rights by arresting and wrongfully 

incarcerating him. The district court’s judgment dismissing his complaint 

 

* 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

May 7, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-30564 Document: 00514947141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/07/2019
No. 18-30564

2

without prejudice for failure to prosecute was entered on March 15, 2017. 

Riggs filed a notice of appeal over a year later.

We must consider, sua sponte when necessary, whether we have

jurisdiction over an appeal. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). 

In a civil case, a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement. Bowles 

v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Relative to the district court’s March 15, 

2017 judgment, Riggs’s April 27, 2018 notice of appeal was untimely. FED.

R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed 30 days after entry of 

judgment or order). 

Nor is Riggs’ appeal saved by the district court’s April 19, 2018 denial of 

his appeal of the magistrate judge’s April 4, 2018 order declaring his March 

2018 motion for summary judgment moot. Because the motion for summary 

judgment was filed more than 28 days after the March 15, 2017 judgment, we 

consider the motion as one seeking relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. A notice of appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion in 

a civil proceeding, however, is not a substitute for appeal and does not bring 

up the underlying March 15, 2017 judgment for review. Bailey v. Cain, 609 

F.3d 763, 767 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 987 

F.2d 1199, 1203–04 (5th Cir.1993)).

Furthermore, we review the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion for abuse of 

discretion. Thermacor Process, L.P. v. BASF Corp., 567 F.3d 736, 744 (5th Cir.

2009). In his appellate brief, Riggs explains neither his failure to timely appeal 

the March 15, 2017 judgment of dismissal or his delay in filing the summary 

judgment motion. He likewise fails to address any bases that may justify the 

grant of a Rule 60(b) motion. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion by 

the district court in denying the motion. 

 Case: 18-30564 Document: 00514947141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/07/2019
No. 18-30564

3

Because Riggs’ notice of appeal was untimely relative to the district 

court’s March 15, 2017 judgment, his appeal of that judgment is DISMISSED 

for lack of jurisdiction. Considering Riggs’ motion for summary judgment as a 

Rule 60(b) motion, the district court’s April 19, 2018 order, denying Riggs’ 

appeal of the magistrate judge’s April 4, 2018 order, is AFFIRMED. We also 

DENY Riggs’ motion for a restraining order. 

 Case: 18-30564 Document: 00514947141 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/07/2019