Jesus Jehovah v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for judicial notice [999524418-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00087-JCC-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999683745]. Mailed to: appellant. [14-7881]

Appeal: 14-7881

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 6

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7881

JESUS EMMANUEL JEHOVAH, a/k/a Robert Gabriel Love, a/k/a
Gabriel Alexander Antonio,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W.
Director,

CLARKE,

Director;

A.

DAVID

ROBINSON,

Deputy

Defendants – Appellees,
and
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden, Sussex I
State Prison; ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, in their official, individual, and private
capacities, jointly and severally; EDDIE L. PEARSON, Warden;
KEISHA FOWLKES, Unit Manager; MS. EVANS, Records Officer;
MS. ANSAH, Corporal; ARMOR CORRECTIONAL HEALTH SERVICES,
INC.; ANTHONY KING, Dr.; MESELE GEBREYES, Dr.; BENJAMIN J.
ULEP, Dr.,
Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-00087-JCC-IDD)

Submitted:

July 28, 2015

Before TRAXLER,
Judges.

Chief

Judge,

Decided:

and

GREGORY

and

October 22, 2015

FLOYD,

Circuit

Appeal: 14-7881

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 6

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jesus Emmanuel Jehovah, Appellant Pro Se.
Trevor Stephen Cox,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Appeal: 14-7881

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 6

PER CURIAM:
Jesus Emmanuel Jehovah seeks to appeal the district court’s
March 26, 2014 order denying his first Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
motion for relief from judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012)
action and the court’s November 20, 2014 order denying a second
Rule 60(b) motion.

We dismiss Jehovah’s appeal.

First, we conclude that Jehovah failed to timely appeal
from the denial of his first Rule 60(b) motion.

Parties are

accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final
judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A),
unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(6).

If a party files a Rule 60 motion within 28

days of the judgment appealed from, “the time to file an appeal
runs

. . . from the entry of the order disposing of the [Rule

60] motion.”

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).

“[T]he timely filing

of

of

is

a

notice

requirement.”
The

appeal

in

a

civil

case

a

jurisdictional

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

district

court’s

order

denying

Jehovah’s

first

Rule

60(b) motion was entered on the docket on March 26, 2014.

The

notice of appeal was filed on December 10, 2014. *

*

Furthermore,

For the purpose of this appeal, we assume that the date
appearing on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it could
have been properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to
(Continued)
3

Appeal: 14-7881

Doc: 24

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 4 of 6

Jehovah’s second Rule 60(b) motion did not extend the time for
noting an appeal because it was filed on August 16, 2014, more
than 28 days after the district court’s March 26, 2014 order.
Because Jehovah failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to
obtain
dismiss

an

extension

his

appeal

or

reopening

from

the

of

denial

the

of

appeal

his

first

period,
Rule

we

60(b)

motion for lack of jurisdiction.
With respect to Jehovah’s appeal from the denial of his
second Rule 60(b) motion, we may address sua sponte whether an
appeal is moot because “[t]he doctrine of mootness originates in
Article III’s case or controversy language.”

Incumma v. Ozmint,

507 F.3d 281, 285-86 (4th Cir. 2007) (internal alterations and
quotation marks omitted).
presented
cognizable

are

no

longer

interest

in

“[A] case is moot when the issues
live

the

quotation marks omitted).

or

the

parties

out-come.”

Id.

lack

at

286

a

legally

(internal

Litigation may become moot even on

appeal, and “[i]f an event occurs while a case is pending on
appeal

that

makes

it

impossible

for

the

court

to

grant

any

effectual relief whatever to a prevailing party, the appeal must
be

dismissed.”

Id.

(brackets

and

internal

quotation

marks

omitted).

the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266,
276 (1988).

4

Appeal: 14-7881

Doc: 24

On

July

Filed: 10/22/2015

9,

2015,

Pg: 5 of 6

while

this

appeal

was

pending,

we

reversed, in its entirety, the district court’s judgment denying
relief

on

Jehovah’s

further proceedings.

42

U.S.C.

§ 1983

action,

remanding

See Jehovah v. Clarke, ___ F.3d ___, No.

13-7529, 2015 WL 4126391, at *1 (4th Cir. July 9, 2015).
reversing

the

for

district

court’s

order,

we

concluded

that

In
the

district court erred by not permitting Jehovah an opportunity to
present evidence and arguments regarding his Religious Land Use
and Incarcerated Persons Act claim and his First Amendment free
exercise

claim,

both

stemming

from

a

prison

prohibiting inmates from consuming communion wine.

regulation
Id. at *4-6.

Jehovah has thus secured the opportunity, on remand, to present
the

evidence

motion.

and

arguments

raised

in

his

second

Rule

60(b)

Jehovah is unable to gain any further meaningful relief

through the resolution of this appeal, and therefore no longer
has a legally cognizable interest in its outcome.
Accordingly, we dismiss Jehovah’s appeal from the denial of
his first Rule 60(b) motion as untimely and dismiss his appeal
from the denial of his second Rule 60(b) motion as moot.
deny

Jehovah’s

problems.

motion

for

judicial

notice

of

his

We

health

See United States v. Hawkins, 76 F.3d 545, 551-52

(4th Cir. 1996) (observing that under Fed. R. Evid. 201, court
may

not

dispute).

take

judicial

notice

of

fact

subject

to

reasonable

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
5

Appeal: 14-7881

legal
before

Doc: 24

contentions
this

court

Filed: 10/22/2015

Pg: 6 of 6

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

6