Court Opinion

ID: 9899957
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 23:00:41.808771+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:57.247843
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-20243         Document: 00516972379             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/17/2023

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

                                      ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                  November 17, 2023
                                       No. 23-20243                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                        Clerk
                                     ____________

   Masud Hamid,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   State of Michigan; Michigan State Police,

                                               Defendants—Appellees.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Southern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 4:22-CV-4038
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Masud Hamid has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP)
   in the instant appeal. Hamid’s IFP motion challenges the district court’s
   determination that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
   117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). This court’s inquiry into whether the
   appeal is taken in good faith “is limited to whether the appeal involves ‘legal

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-20243        Document: 00516972379             Page: 2      Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                         No. 23-20243

   points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).’” Howard
   v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (citation omitted).
           Hamid’s contention that he had 60 days to notice his appeal is
   incorrect. Because none of the parties were within the categories listed in
   Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(1)(B), Hamid had “30 days after entry
   of the judgment or order appealed from” to file his notice of appeal, not 60
   days. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), (B). His first motion for a new trial
   was filed less than 28 days after entry of the judgment dismissing his civil
   action; therefore, the 30-day period to file a notice of appeal ran from April
   11, 2023, the date the order disposing of that Rule 59 motion was entered. See
   Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(v); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).1 However, his second
   Rule 59-denominated motion did not further extend the time to appeal. See
   Ellis v. Richardson, 471 F.2d 720, 721 (5th Cir. 1973). Therefore, Hamid’s
   notice of appeal, filed on May 26, 2023, is not timely from the judgment
   dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Instead, the notice of appeal is
   timely only from the order of May 8, 2023, denying Hamid’s second Rule 59-
   denominated motion.
           Further, because the second Rule 59-denominated motion was filed
   outside the 28-day period applicable to such motions, it is treated as a Federal
   Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1); Fed.
   R. Civ. P. 59(e); Frew v. Young, 992 F.3d 391, 397 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2021).
   Pursuant to Rule 60(b), a party may obtain relief from a final judgment if he
   establishes (1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
   (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct
   by an opposing party; (4) that the judgment is void; (5) that the judgment has
           _____________________
           1
            We treat Hamid’s first “new trial” motion as a motion to alter or amend the
   judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). See Patin v. Allied Signal, Inc., 77
   F.3d 782, 785 n.1 (5th Cir. 1996).

                                               2
Case: 23-20243      Document: 00516972379           Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/17/2023

                                     No. 23-20243

   been satisfied, released, or discharged; is based on an earlier judgment that
   has been reversed or vacated; or applied prospectively is no longer equitable;
   or (6) any other reason that justifies relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
          Hamid asserts that the district court erred in dismissing his civil rights
   claims on grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity without considering
   the defendants’ constitutional violations and their failure to comply with
   national security law. He contends that the defendants are not entitled to
   Eleventh Amendment immunity because their conduct violated the
   Fourteenth Amendment, and that they are not entitled to sovereign
   immunity because they acted with reckless disregard of his Fourth
   Amendment rights. Hamid argues that the defendants failed to provide
   evidence, violated the Freedom of Information Act, committed discovery
   violations, and destroyed evidence. In conclusory terms, he also faults the
   district court for denying his request to obtain video evidence.
          Hamid’s arguments challenge the district court’s dismissal of his
   § 1983 complaint. However, his appeal from the denial of his Rule 60(b)
   motion did not bring the underlying judgment up for review. See Bailey
   v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763, 767 (5th Cir. 2010). Hamid fails to raise any contention
   that the district court abused its discretion in denying his post-judgment
   motion. He has failed to brief, and has therefore abandoned, the relevant
   issue. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993) (holding that
   even pro se appellants must brief arguments in order to preserve them).
          In view of the foregoing, Hamid fails to show that his appeal will
   involve a nonfrivolous issue. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220. Accordingly, his
   IFP motion is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See
   Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Hamid’s motion to
   expedite the appeal is DENIED as moot.

                                          3