Michael Hudson v. Paul Smeal, et al
| MICHAEL LEON HUDSON |
| PAUL K. SMEAL, Superintendent, ATTORNEY GENERAL PENNSYLVANIA and DISTRICT ATTORNEY ALLEGHENY COUNTY |
| 12-3842 |
| October 5, 2012 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit |
| Habeas Corpus |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
3011363361
ORDER (Coram: AMBRO, SMITH and CHAGARES, Circuit Judges) Appellant's motion for leave to attach exhibits to his petition for rehearing is granted, and the Clerk is directed to file the petition. The petition for panel rehearing is granted. A notice of appeal in a civil action to which the United States is not a party must be filed within 30 days of the entry of the judgment in question. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) (A). This requirement is mandatory and juriisdictional. Gov't of the V.I. v. Martinez, 620 F.3d 321, 328 (3d Cir. 2010). Appellant has not submitted a copy of a notice of appeal dated July 23, 2012, that he alleges he submitted to the District Court. Because Appellant's purported notice of appeal may have been filed within the 30- day period, the June 7, 2013 order dismissing Appellant's appeal for lack of jurisdiction is vacated, and we remand to the District Court to make appropriate findings of fact regarding the purported notice of appeal. The District Court is asked to determine whether a notice of appeal was actually filed and, if so, the date on which it was filed. This Court will otherwise retain jurisdiction. This appeal will be held in abeyance until the District Court issues a decision. Authoring Judge: SMITH.
|
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
