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UNPUBLISHED OPINION ORDER FILED.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]

Download PDF
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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

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?