Court Opinion

ID: 9352467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 17:00:37.303029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:03:15.804417
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 21-13729   Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 01/06/2023   Page: 1 of 4

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                  In the
              United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 21-13729
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       JEROME FERRIER,
                                                  Petitioner-Appellant,
                                  versus
       FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
       STATE OF FLORIDA,

                                               Respondents-Appellees.

                         ____________________

                Appeal from the United States District Court
                    for the Northern District of Florida
                 D.C. Docket No. 4:17-cv-00178-RH-EMT
USCA11 Case: 21-13729      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 01/06/2023     Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                 21-13729

       Before WILSON, LUCK, AND TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges
       PER CURIAM:
               Jerome Ferrier, a Florida state prisoner proceeding pro se,
       appeals the District Court’s order denying his Fed. R. App. P.
       4(a)(6) motion to reopen the time to appeal the order denying his
       pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. He argues that the District Court
       abused its discretion by not reopening the time to address the de-
       nial of his petition. He contends that he could not have timely ap-
       pealed because he did not receive notice of the order within the
       180-day deadline in Rule 4(a)(6) due to delays from COVID-19 and
       failures by the officials responsible for processing and mailing the
       order, and thus the time limit to appeal should have been equitably
       tolled for these extraordinary circumstances.
               We review a district court’s denial of a motion to reopen the
       time to file a notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(6) for an abuse of
       discretion. McDaniel v. Moore, 292 F.3d 1304, 1305 (11th Cir.
       2002). But we review de novo a district court’s interpretation of
       federal procedural rules. Vencor Hosps., Inc. v. Standard Life &
       Accident Ins. Co., 279 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir. 2002). A petitioner
       may proceed before us despite the lack of a certificate of appeala-
       bility (“COA”) to the extent he is not appealing a final order on the
       merits of his § 2254 petition. Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180, 183,
       129 S. Ct. 1481, 1485 (2009).
              A notice of appeal in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 case is timely if it is
       filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed
USCA11 Case: 21-13729      Document: 23-1      Date Filed: 01/06/2023     Page: 3 of 4

       21-13729                Opinion of the Court                         3

       from. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, a district court may
       reopen the time to appeal for a period of 14 days after the date its
       order to reopen is entered if: (A) the court finds that the moving
       party did not receive notice of entry of the judgment or order
       within 21 days of entry; (B) a motion is filed within 180 days after
       the judgment or order is entered, or within 14 days after the mov-
       ing party receives notice of the entry, whichever is earlier; and (C)
       the court finds that no party would be prejudiced. Fed. R. App. P.
       4(a)(6).
               In Bowles v. Russell, the Supreme Court clarified that the
       timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional
       requirement and rejected the petitioner’s argument that the Court
       should excuse his untimely filing because he satisfied the “unique
       circumstances” doctrine. 551 U.S. 205, 213–14, 127 S. Ct. 2360,
       2366 (2007). The Supreme Court explained that because it “has no
       authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional require-
       ments, use of the ‘unique circumstances’ doctrine is illegitimate.”
       Id. at 214, 127 S. Ct. at 2366. In Vencor Hosps., Inc., we made clear
       that extensions under Rule 4(a)(6) are limited and that “[u]nder the
       plain meaning of Rule 4(a)(6), district courts are authorized to reo-
       pen the time for filing an appeal based on lack of notice solely
       within 180 days of the judgment or order.” 279 F.3d at 1310.
              Here, the District Court did not abuse its discretion. The
       District Court entered a final judgment denying Ferrier’s § 2254 pe-
       tition on November 23, 2020. On July 20, 2021, Ferrier filed a pro
       se Rule 4(a)(6) motion to reopen the time to appeal the denial of
USCA11 Case: 21-13729     Document: 23-1     Date Filed: 01/06/2023    Page: 4 of 4

       4                      Opinion of the Court               21-13729

       his § 2254 petition. Ferrier thus filed his motion to reopen more
       than 180 days after the District Court entered the final judgment
       denying his § 2254 petition, and the 180-day limit to reopen the
       time to appeal is mandatory and not subject to equitable tolling for
       extraordinary or unique circumstances. Accordingly, we affirm.
             AFFIRMED.