Feliberto Ramirez, Sr. v. Marvin Isgur, et
544 F. App'x 532
5th Cir.2013Background
- Court must assess its jurisdiction sua sponte when necessary; final order dated Sept. 19, 2013; appeal filed Jan. 7, 2013; Rule 59(e) motion not filed within 28 days; extensions not permitted; thus Rule 59(e) did not extend time.
- Court dismisses appeal as to the underlying Sept. 19 orders; timely as to the order denying the Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider.
- Notice of appeal is deficient for failing to reference the December 5, 2012 order, and the court deems the contentions abandoned for lack of briefing.
- Pro se briefs must present relevant arguments and authorities; liberal construction does not救 salvage the omissions; dismissal affirmed as to the underlying order and affirmance of denial of Rule 59(e) relief.
- Court notes that Medrano was not served and had no appearance, but the Sept. 19 orders were final for purposes of appeal; attempts to add nonparties on appeal are unavailing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of appeal as to Sept. 19 orders | Appellants contend timely for at least some orders | Timeliness defective for underlying orders | Dismissed in part; timely for denial of Rule 59(e) motion |
| Effect of Rule 59(e) motion on deadline | Rule 59(e) extended time to appeal | Rule 59(e) motion not filed within 28 days, no extension | Rule 59(e) motion did not extend time for appeal |
| Adequacy of notice referencing December 5, 2012 order | Notice could be read to encompass December 5 order | Notice did not specifically reference the December 5 order | Notice deficient; contentions abandoned; no further briefing considered |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. City of Seven Points, 230 F.3d 167 (5th Cir. 2000) (jurisdictional sua sponte considerations; time limits for appeal)
- In re Crescent Resources, 496 F. App’x 421 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpublished; Rule 59(e) motions and appeal timelines discussed)
- Lizardo v. United States, 619 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2010) (timeliness and procedural requirements for appeals)
- Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763 (5th Cir. 2010) (notice of appeal must specifically reference the judgment or order)
- Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1993) (pro se briefs must make relevant arguments and cite authorities)
- Nagle v. Lee, 807 F.2d 435 (5th Cir. 1986) (unserved defendant may not be party to suit; finality for appeal)