Alma Infante v. City of Hastings, et al

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Roger L. Wollman, Morris S. Arnold and Raymond W. Gruender (UNPUBLISHED); Denying as moot [4362315-2] motion to file out of time, stay briefing schedule and to dismiss filed by Ms. Stephanie Anne Caldwell.; Denying as moot [4366397-2] motion for remand filed by Mr. Terry K. Barber. [4450447] [15-3686]

Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 15-3686 ___________________________ Alma Rosa Infante lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. City of Hastings, Nebraska; Adams County, Nebraska; State of Nebraska; John and Jane Does 1-10 lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Lincoln ____________ Submitted: September 16, 2016 Filed: September 21, 2016 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Alma Infante appeals after the district court1 dismissed her amended 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, denied her post-judgment motion for leave to file a second 1 The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. Appellate Case: 15-3686 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/21/2016 Entry ID: 4450447 amended complaint, and denied her post-judgment motion for an extension of time to appeal. Also pending are motions filed by the parties in this court. As an initial matter, we conclude that Infante’s notice of appeal was timely as to the district court’s post-judgment orders, but not as to the court’s September 3, 2015 dismissal order and judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (providing thirty days to appeal in a civil case); Dieser v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 440 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2006) (explaining that timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional). We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Infante’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. See United States ex rel. Roop v. Hypoguard USA, Inc., 559 F.3d 818, 824 (8th Cir. 2009) (explaining that district courts have considerable discretion to deny post-judgment motions for leave to amend because such motions are disfavored). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Infante’s motion for an extension of time to appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A) (allowing a district court to extend time to file notice of appeal upon showing of excusable neglect or good cause if a party so moves no later than thirty days after the time prescribed in Rule 4(a) expires); Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 507 U.S. 380, 392 (1993) (establishing that inadvertence, ignorance of the rules, or mistakes construing rules do not usually constitute excusable neglect); Gibbons v. United States, 317 F.3d 852, 853 n.3 (8th Cir. 2003) (explaining that the good-cause standard applies to situations involving occurrences not within the movant’s control). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We also deny all pending motions as moot. ______________________________ -2- Appellate Case: 15-3686 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/21/2016 Entry ID: 4450447

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?