Court Opinion

ID: 9395809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 18:00:45.911376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:12.538219
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-40451         Document: 00516754902             Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/18/2023

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

                                      ____________                                           FILED
                                                                                         May 18, 2023
                                       No. 22-40451                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                     Summary Calendar                                        Clerk
                                     ____________

   Eric Watkins,

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Weston L., Disciplinary Hearing Office, Beaumont Federal Correctional
   Complex-Medium,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                           for the Eastern District of Texas
                                USDC No. 1:12-CV-18
                      ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Graves, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Eric Watkins, former federal prisoner # 55630-004, proceeding pro se
   and in forma pauperis (IFP), filed a complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six
   Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The
   district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40451      Document: 00516754902           Page: 2   Date Filed: 05/18/2023

                                    No. 22-40451

   relief may be granted, finding that Bivens did not afford a cause of action. See
   28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watkins challenges that decision.
          As a threshold matter, this court must determine whether it has
   jurisdiction to entertain Watkins’s appeal. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660
   (5th Cir. 1987). “[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).
   Where, as here, one of the parties is a current or former “United States
   officer or employee” sued in an official or individual capacity, an appellant in
   a civil case has 60 days from the entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal.
   Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(iii)-(iv).           The district court entered its
   judgment dismissing Watkins’s complaint on Monday, May 16, 2022. The
   60-day time period for filing an appeal expired on Friday, July 15, 2022. See
   Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Watkins’s notice of appeal was docketed on
   July 18, 2022, the next Monday, and, therefore, it was untimely. See id.; see
   also Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1).
          As Watkins’s notice of appeal is untimely, his appeal is
   DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B);
   Bowles, 551 U.S. at 213-14.

                                              2