Court Opinion

ID: 9407439
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 00:00:35.541579+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:38.379183
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-60485        Document: 00516811515             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/06/2023

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

                                                                                       FILED
                                      No. 22-60485                                    July 6, 2023
                                    Summary Calendar
                                    ____________                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                          Clerk
   Dean C. Boyd,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Vickie Thomas; N.P. Miranda Shegog; P.A. Shauna
   Nguyen; Shirley Harris; M.D. James Glisson; Sergeant
   Williams; Officer Sanders; Willie Knighten,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of Mississippi
                               USDC No. 4:22-CV-113
                     ______________________________

   Before Dennis, Elrod, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
         Dean C. Boyd, a Mississippi prisoner, appeals the dismissal without
   prejudice of his civil rights complaint for failure to exhaust administrative
   remedies.

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60485      Document: 00516811515            Page: 2   Date Filed: 07/06/2023

                                      No. 22-60485

          We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction, sua sponte, if
   necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely
   “notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v.
   Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Boyd filed an “objection” to the final
   judgment which challenged the correctness of that judgment. See Fed. R.
   Civ. P. 59(e). Such a pleading is commonly construed as a Rule 59(e)
   motion if, as here, it was filed within the applicable 28-day time limit. See
   Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012, 1015 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying the
   former 10-day time limit for filing a Rule 59(e) motion); United States v.
   Gallardo, 915 F.2d 149, 150 n.2 (5th Cir. 1990) (liberally construing objections
   as a motion for reconsideration in the context of the former 10-day time limit
   for filing a Rule 59(e) motion).
          Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4, the filing of certain
   postjudgment motions, including a timely Rule 59(e) motion, renders a
   notice of appeal ineffective until an order is entered disposing of the motion.
   Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (B)(i); see also Simmons v. Reliance
   Standard Life Ins. Co. of Tex., 310 F.3d 865, 868 (5th Cir. 2002). Because the
   district court has not ruled on Boyd’s constructive Rule 59(e) motion, his
   notice of appeal is not yet effective, and this appeal is premature. See Fed.
   R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i); Burt v. Ware, 14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994).
   Accordingly, this case is REMANDED for the limited purpose of allowing
   the district court to rule on the Rule 59(e) motion. We hold the appeal in
   abeyance until the notice of appeal becomes effective, and we retain
   jurisdiction over the appeal except for the purposes of the limited remand.
   The clerk of this court is instructed to process the appeal immediately upon
   the return of the case from the district court.
          LIMITED REMAND; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE.

                                               2