Jerry Castillo, Jr. v. David Munoz, et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED. [15-50878 Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction] Judge: EGJ , Judge: WED , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 04/07/2017; denying as moot motion requesting from defendants production of listed documents for inspection and copying filed by Appellant Mr. Jerry Castillo, Jr. [8289514-2]; denying as moot motion to appoint counsel filed by Appellant Mr. Jerry Castillo, Jr. [8289487-2]; denying as moot motion to proceed IFP in accordance with PLRA filed by Appellant Mr. Jerry Castillo, Jr. [8090819-2] [15-50878]

Case: 15-50878

Document: 00513916664

Page: 1

Date Filed: 03/17/2017

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-50878

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit

FILED
March 17, 2017

JERRY CASTILLO, JR.,

Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk

Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
DAVID MUNOZ, Police Officer, Badge # 1440 – San Antonio Police
Department; NICK UNDERCOVER OFFICER, Detective – San Antonio Police
Department – Last Name Unknown; SAN ANTONIO POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:13-CV-1181
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Jerry Castillo, Jr., Texas prisoner # 2074055, has filed a motion for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to appeal the district court’s denial of his
motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b).
He has also filed motions for the appointment of counsel and production of
certain documents.
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*

Case: 15-50878

Document: 00513916664

Page: 2

Date Filed: 03/17/2017

No. 15-50878
“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion,
if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A timely
notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case. Bowles v.
Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Castillo had 30 days, or until April 8, 2015,
to file a timely notice of appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). He did not file
a notice of appeal until well after this appeal period expired. The untimely
notice of appeal could not be construed as a motion for an extension of time.
See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Henry v. Estelle, 688 F.2d 407, 407 (5th Cir.
1982). Castillo’s subsequent motion for leave to proceed IFP and the denial
thereof do not affect the untimeliness of this appeal. See Briggs v. Lucas, 678
F.2d 612, 613 (5th Cir. 1982).
Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction, and
Castillo’s motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

2