Court Opinion

ID: 9955932
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 19:00:49.402681+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:40.940099
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 23-10787   Document: 17-1    Date Filed: 03/29/2024   Page: 1 of 4

                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]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

                         ____________________

                              No. 23-10787
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       RICHARD SALINO GARCIA,
       a.k.a. Ricky Garcia,
       a.k.a. Rick Garcia,
       a.k.a. Ricky Salino Garcia,
                                                   Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
       versus
       HERNANDO COUNTY SHERIFF,
       MICHAEL A. GRAVES,
       Public Defender,
       BRAD KING,
       State Attorney,
       WALMART,
USCA11 Case: 23-10787       Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2024      Page: 2 of 4

       2                       Opinion of the Court                   23-10787

                                                       Defendants-Appellees.

                             ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                   D.C. Docket No. 8:21-cv-01845-TPB-AEP
                           ____________________

       Before ROSENBAUM, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
              Richard Garcia, an inmate proceeding pro se, appeals from
       the final judgment dismissing his case, deemed entered on Septem-
       ber 26, 2022. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A). On remand, the district
       court denied a construed motion to reopen the appeal period under
       Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). We then construed Garcia’s filing about
       that ruling as an amended notice of appeal challenging the order
       on remand and directed Garcia to submit a letter brief containing
       his challenges to that order within 30 days. Thirty days have passed
       and Garcia has not filed a letter brief.
              In a civil case, a timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional re-
       quirement. Green v. Drug Enf’t Admin., 606 F.3d 1296, 1300-02 (11th
       Cir. 2010). Generally, the notice of appeal must be filed within
       30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is “entered.”
       Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). An order is gener-
       ally “entered” when judgment is set forth in a separate document;
       if judgment is not set forth in a separate document, the judgment
USCA11 Case: 23-10787      Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 03/29/2024     Page: 3 of 4

       23-10787               Opinion of the Court                          3

       is “entered” under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) 150 days after the order was
       docketed. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A), 58(a)(4). If the appeal period
       or other period of time ends on a weekend, the period continues to
       run until the next weekday. Id. R. 26(a)(1). A pro se prisoner’s no-
       tice of appeal and other filings are deemed filed on the date he de-
       livers them to prison authorities for mailing; unless there is con-
       trary evidence, we assume that he delivered the filing on the day
       that he signed it. Id. R. 4(c)(1); Jeffries, 748 F.3d at 1314.
              We review the denial of a motion to reopen under Rule
       4(a)(6) for abuse of discretion. McDaniel v. Moore, 292 F.3d 1304,
       1305 (11th Cir. 2002). District courts “may” reopen the appeal pe-
       riod when certain requirements are met. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6);
       28 U.S.C. § 2107(c).
               An issue is abandoned if it is not prominently raised on ap-
       peal or is raised without supporting arguments and authorities, but
       we can consider the issue sua sponte if a forfeiture exception applies
       and extraordinary circumstances warrant review. Access Now, Inc.
       v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2004); Sapuppo v.
       Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 681 (11th Cir. 2014); United
       States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 873 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc).
               Here, because Garcia has not submitted a letter brief within
       the prescribed period, he has abandoned any challenge to the dis-
       trict court’s Rule 4(a)(6) order. See, e.g., Sapuppo, 739 F.3d at 681.
       And based on our review of the record, the district court did not
       abuse its discretion in declining to reopen the appeal period.
USCA11 Case: 23-10787      Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 03/29/2024     Page: 4 of 4

       4                       Opinion of the Court                  23-10787

              Therefore, Garcia’s notice of appeal, deemed filed on March
       7, 2023, was untimely to appeal from the final judgment deemed
       entered on September 26, 2022 because it was not filed within 30
       days of that entry. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (a)(7)(A); Jeffries,
       748 F.3d at 1314; 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a).
              Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s May 9, 2023 de-
       nial of Garcia’s Rule 4(a)(6) motion and DISMISS the appeal from
       the final judgment dismissing Garcia’s action because we lack juris-
       diction to review that judgment. All pending motions are DENIED
       as moot.