Andre Revis v. Stuart Sherman, et al
| STUART SHERMAN, Warden, M. HACKER, Associate Warden and J. COLLINS, Associate Warden |
| ANDRE L. REVIS |
| 20-16090 |
| June 3, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 23, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed order (SIDNEY R. THOMAS, MARY M. SCHROEDER and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN) : A review of the record and appellants response to the June 8, 2020 order to show cause demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal, served on May 22, 2020 and filed on June 1, 2020, was not filed or delivered to prison officials within 30 days after the district courts judgment entered on February 25, 2020 or the district courts post-judgment order entered on March 18, 2020. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (court lacks authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirement of timely notice of appeal). Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. DISMISSED. [11764204] (RT) [Entered: 07/23/2020 03:33 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed Appellant Andre L. Revis response to order to show cause. [11736753] (NAC) [Entered: 06/29/2020 02:41 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed clerk order (Deputy Clerk: CO): The district courts judgment was entered on the docket on February 25, 2020. Appellants notice of appeal was delivered to prison officials on May 22, 2020, and received by the district court on June 1, 2020. Accordingly, the record suggests that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was not filed or delivered to prison officials within 30 days after entry of the district courts judgment. See 28 U.S.C. 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), 4(c); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988) (notice of appeal deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court). The record reflects that appellant has not filed a motion in the district court to extend or reopen time for appeal and that the notice of appeal was due during the COVID-19 public health crisis. See Fed R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. Within 60 days after the date of this order, appellant must move for voluntary dismissal of the appeal, or show cause why it should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If appellant does not comply with this order, the Clerk will dismiss this appeal pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 42-1. Briefing is suspended pending further order of the court. [11714652] (CKP) [Entered: 06/08/2020 03:08 PM] |
| Filing 2 Received copy of amended notice of appeal from district court. [11711352] (NAC) [Entered: 06/04/2020 02:22 PM] |
| Filing 1 DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCE OF PRO SE APPELLANT AND NO APPEARANCE FOR APPELLEES. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Andre L. Revis opening brief due 07/31/2020. [11710109] (JMR) [Entered: 06/03/2020 03:23 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
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.
