JOHNSON v. HOLT et al

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)

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