Court Opinion

ID: 9894584
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-02 14:00:38.660675+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:04.999082
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-13190   Document: 5-2      Date Filed: 11/02/2023    Page: 1 of 2

                                  In the
               United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 23-13190
                         ____________________

      JESSE DANIEL MAJOR,
                                                     Plaintiff-Appellant,
      versus
      OFFICER JONES,

                                                   Defendant-Appellee,

      LEE ANNA SMITH, et al.,

                                                            Defendants.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Middle District of Georgia
USCA11 Case: 23-13190     Document: 5-2      Date Filed: 11/02/2023     Page: 2 of 2

      2                       Order of the Court                  23-13190

                  D.C. Docket No. 7:21-cv-00051-WLS-TQL
                         ____________________

      Before WILSON and GRANT, Circuit Judges.
      BY THE COURT:
              This appeal is REMANDED, sua sponte, to the district court
      for the limited purpose of determining whether to reopen the ap-
      peal period under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6).
      Jesse Daniel Major’s pro se notice of appeal, filed on September 19,
      2023, is untimely to appeal from the district court’s July 19, 2023
      final order and judgment dismissing his complaint. See Fed. R. App.
      P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, Major’s notice of appeal, which we must
      liberally construe, suggests that he did not receive notice of the fi-
      nal order and judgment within 21 days of entry because he was in
      jail, where he did not receive mail, during that time. See, e.g., Er-
      ickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (explaining that courts must
      construe pro se filings liberally). Thus, there is a question as to
      whether the appeal period should be reopened under Rule 4(a)(6).
      See Sanders v. United States, 113 F.3d 184, 186-87 (11th Cir. 1997);
      Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Upon making its determinations, the dis-
      trict court shall return the case, as supplemented, to this Court for
      further proceedings.