Court Opinion

ID: 9367724
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-01 19:00:43.809288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:02.962411
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-10137        Document: 00516630759             Page: 1      Date Filed: 02/01/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit
                                                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                       Fifth Circuit

                                                                                     FILED
                                                                               February 1, 2023
                                        No. 22-10137                            Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                     Clerk

   United States of America, ex rel., Howard Beck, M.D.,

                                                                   Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   St. Joseph Health System; Covenant Health System;
   Covenant Medical Center; Covenant Medical Group,

                                                                 Defendants—Appellees.

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 5:17-CV-52

   Before Wiener, Higginson, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Relator-Appellant Howard Beck, M.D. (“Relator”) alleges that
   Defendants-Appellees healthcare entities (“Defendants”) engaged in an
   illegal scheme to pay physicians for patient referrals. We lack jurisdiction
   over this matter because the notice of appeal was untimely.

         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-10137          Document: 00516630759           Page: 2      Date Filed: 02/01/2023

                                         No. 22-10137

           The relevant dates are as follows: The district court granted summary
   judgment for Defendants and entered judgment on November 30, 2021. On
   December 10, 2021, Relator moved the district court to alter or amend the
   judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). This motion was denied on
   December 14 for failure to include a certificate of conference. That same day,
   Relator filed a second identical motion to alter or amend the judgment with
   the requested certificate of conference. On January 12, 2022, Relator’s
   second motion was denied. Relator filed his notice of appeal on February 9,
   2022.
               “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdic-
   tional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Parties ordi-
   narily have 30 days from entry of judgment to file such a notice, Fed. R.
   App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 1 but this requirement is tolled by a timely post-judgment
   motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or 60. See Fed. R. App. P.
   4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (v), (vi). If thus tolled, the time begins to run again from the
   decision on the last timely post-judgment motion. See id. There is an excep-
   tion, however: A successive post-judgment motion that seeks the same or
   similar relief as an earlier filed post-judgment motion does not further toll the
   time to appeal. See Charles L.M. v. N.E. Indep. Sch. Dist., 884 F.2d 869, 870
   (5th Cir. 1989) (holding that a successive identical post-judgment motion
   does not toll the time to appeal as recognized by “well-established authority
   in this and other circuits”); see also Thomas v. Stafflink, Inc., 855 F. App’x
   983, 984 (5th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 1386 (2022) (finding a notice
   of appeal untimely due to this principle); Edwards v. 4JLJ, L.L.C., 976 F.3d
   463, 465 (5th Cir. 2020) (same). Our court has held, so we are bound, that

           1
           The government did not intervene here; therefore, the ordinary 30-day deadline
   under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) applies. See U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York,
   New York, 556 U.S. 928, 931 (2009).

                                               2
Case: 22-10137       Document: 00516630759           Page: 3     Date Filed: 02/01/2023

                                      No. 22-10137

   this holds true when the second motion is identical to the first. Id. The 30-
   day time for appeal ran from the district court’s denial of Relator’s first Rule
   59(e) motion.
          This longstanding rule aims to prevent gamesmanship of the time to
   file an appeal. See Charles L.M., 884 F.2d at 871 (“The interest of finality
   requires that parties generally get only one bite at the rule 59(e) apple for the
   purpose of tolling the time for bringing an appeal.”). While the situation here
   does not implicate gamesmanship, it falls within our precedent that a succes-
   sive identical post-judgment motion does not serve to toll the deadline. See
   id. If ever a party is at risk of an untimely notice of appeal under this principle,
   it may file notice to preserve its appeal, even while a post-judgment motion
   is pending. See Ross v. Marshall, 426 F.3d 745, 751-52 (5th Cir. 2005).
          Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and this appeal is
   DISMISSED.

                                            3