United States of America v. Foster
MOTION by Defendant Napoleon Foster for judgment under Rule 58 and Request for Certificates of Appealability (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wood, Lisa)
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
March 17, 2017
By the Court:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appeal from the United
States District Court for
the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division.
Robert W. Gettleman, Judge.
A preliminary review of the short record indicates that the order appealed from
may not be a final appealable judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Generally, an appeal may not be taken in a civil case until a final judgment
disposing of all claims against all parties is entered on the district court's civil docket
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. See Alonzi v. Budget Construction Co., 55 F.3d 331, 333 (7th
Cir. 1995); Cleaver v. Elias, 852 F.2d 266 (7th Cir. 1988).
The district court has not issued a Rule 58 judgment in the present case, and for
In its order of January 3, 2017, the district court denied petitioner Napoleon
Foster’s § 2255 motion as to all issues “except the ACCA issue discussed in Section “C”
above”, and continued the matter for further proceedings. Most recently, the district
court appointed counsel to handle what remains of petitioner Foster’s § 2255 motion.
- over -
This appeal, therefore, appears premature. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner-appellant Foster shall file, on or before March 31,
2017, a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction. A motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) will
satisfy this requirement. Briefing shall be suspended pending further court order.
Caption document "JURISDICTIONAL MEMORANDUM". The filing of a
Circuit Rule 3(c) Docketing Statement does not satisfy your obligation under
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?