Jerry Castillo, Jr. v. David Munoz, et al
UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED.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]
Date Filed: 03/17/2017
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
March 17, 2017
JERRY CASTILLO, JR.,
Lyle W. Cayce
DAVID MUNOZ, Police Officer, Badge # 1440 – San Antonio Police
Department; NICK UNDERCOVER OFFICER, Detective – San Antonio Police
Department – Last Name Unknown; SAN ANTONIO POLICE
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
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Date Filed: 03/17/2017
“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.
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.
Why Is My Information Online?