Filing 82

ORDER finding as MOOT 80 Motion for Extension of Time and DENYING as moot 81 Motion for Certificate of Appealability. The Clerk is directed to forward 80 and 81 to the Eleventh Circuit as notice of Johnsons appeal. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 4/13/2017. (tlh)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION TROY DELMAR JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN AHMED HOLT, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-380 (MTT) ORDER Johnson, pro se, has filed a Motion for an Extension of Time so Plaintiff File Appeal (sic). Doc. 80. On the same day, Johnson filed a notice of intent to appeal. Doc. 81. Because Johnson has filed a notice of appeal, his motion for extension is MOOT, or, in the alternative, reconstrued as a notice of appeal. Cf. Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1279 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[W]e conclude that [the plaintiff’s] motion for extension of time to file his notice of appeal should be construed as a notice of appeal.”). The Clerk is directed to forward Docs. 80 and 81 to the Eleventh Circuit as notice of Johnson’s appeal. In Doc. 81, Johnson requests a certificate of appealability. Doc. 81 at 1. This is a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, so a certificate of appealability is not required. Cf. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (requiring issuance of certificate of appealability in habeas actions). Accordingly, Johnson’s request of a certificate of appealability is DENIED as moot. SO ORDERED, this 12th day of April, 2017. S/ Marc T. Treadwell MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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?