COX v. PRIDE ENTERPRISES
Filing
29
ORDER TREATING THE PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR REHEARING/NOTICE OF APPEAL AS A NOTICE OF APPEAL - GRANTED IN PART 28 Plaintiff's MOTION To Correct Illegal Misinterpretation. The plaintiff's "Motion for rehearing/notice of Appeal," ECF No. 26 , is deemed a notice of appeal. The clerk must process the notice of appeal. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/15/2014. (dlt)
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
DENNIS COX,
Plaintiff,
v.
CASE NO. 4:13cv399-RH/CAS
PRIDE ENTERPRISES et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
ORDER TREATING THE PLAINTIFF’S “MOTION FOR
REHEARING/NOTICE OF APPEAL” AS A NOTICE OF APPEAL
The plaintiff filed on December 20, 2013, a document entitled “Motion for
rehearing/notice of Appeal.” The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure make no
provision for seeking in a single document both reconsideration by a district court
of its own decision and review of that decision by the Court of Appeals. Instead,
the rules contemplate an appeal only after the district court has completed its own
consideration of an issue.
Because the plaintiff apparently sought reconsideration by this court, I
considered the plaintiff’s December 20 filing. Because the proper motion for
reconsideration by a district court after the entry of judgment is a motion to alter or
Case No. 4:13cv399-RH/CAS
Page 2 of 2
amend the judgment, I treated the plaintiff’s filing as a motion to alter or amend
the judgment. I did this to preserve the plaintiff’s right to appeal—the rules
provide that the deadline for filing a notice of appeal runs from the denial of a
timely motion to alter or amend, and I did not wish there to be any ambiguity about
whether the plaintiff’s filing was sufficient to extend the appeal deadline.
As is his pattern, the plaintiff has objected, alleging that I somehow did
something wrong by considering the plaintiff’s filing on the merits and preserving
his right to appeal.
In any event, the plaintiff now insists that he intended for the December 20
filing to be treated as a notice of appeal. He has filed a document entitled, “Motion
to correct illegal interpretation.” Giving the plaintiff yet another benefit of the
doubt, I now treat the December 20 filing as a timely notice of appeal.
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
The plaintiff’s “Motion to correct illegal misinterpretation,” ECF No.
28, is GRANTED IN PART.
2.
The plaintiff’s “Motion for rehearing/notice of Appeal,” ECF No. 26,
is deemed a notice of appeal. The clerk must process the notice of appeal.
SO ORDERED on January 15, 2014.
s/Robert L. Hinkle
United States District Judge
Case No. 4:13cv399-RH/CAS
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?