Court Opinion

ID: 9403535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-21 15:02:39.055244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:07.816254
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-1456     Document: 14     Page: 1    Filed: 06/13/2023

            NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                   ______________________

                     MATTIE LOMAX,
                     Plaintiff-Appellant

                              v.

     LUIS G. MONTALDO, SHIRLEY SHABAZZ,
      MICHAEL HENDERSON, LISA LESUER,
  CHARLENE STAFFORD, TANYA WATKING, ALAN
               ADRIAN TAYLOR,
               Defendants-Appellees
              ______________________

                         2023-1456
                   ______________________

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the
 Southern District of Florida in No. 1:09-cv-23293-KMM,
 Judge K. Michael Moore.
                 ______________________

 PER CURIAM.
                          ORDER
     In response to this court’s order directing the parties to
 address whether this appeal should be dismissed, Luis G.
 Montaldo urges dismissal. Mattie Lomax opposes dismis-
 sal and requests summary judgment. Because we lack ju-
 risdiction, we must dismiss the appeal.
Case: 23-1456     Document: 14      Page: 2    Filed: 06/13/2023

 2                                         LOMAX   v. MONTALDO

     Ms. Lomax brought suit in the United States District
 Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that the
 Clerk and other employees of the state’s Eleventh Judicial
 Circuit of Florida conspired to deprive her of certain con-
 stitutional rights. On January 11, 2011, the district court
 dismissed her complaint. In March 2011, the district court
 denied reconsideration. The district court has since denied
 several submissions filed by Ms. Lomax. In particular, on
 January 22, 2020, the district court struck as “frivolous and
 vexatious” her “emergency notice of removal” filed that
 same day. ECF No. 1-2 at 31. On January 23, 2023, Ms.
 Lomax filed this appeal seeking review of that order.
      “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case
 is a jurisdictional requirement,” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.
 205, 214 (2007), and, in order to be timely, a notice of ap-
 peal must generally be filed within 30 days after entry of
 final judgment, 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P.
 4(a)(1)(A). Here, Ms. Lomax filed her notice of appeal three
 years after the January 2020 order she identified in her
 notice of appeal. At least because of this untimeliness, we
 lack jurisdiction over the appeal, and we cannot transfer
 under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 because the appeal would not be
 timely in any other court of appeals.
     Accordingly,
     IT IS ORDERED THAT:
     (1) The appeal is dismissed.
     (2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
                                         FOR THE COURT

 June 13, 2023                          /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
    Date                                Jarrett B. Perlow
                                        Acting Clerk of Court