Arthur Barker v. Ruth Brouwer

Fifth Circuit

Arthur Barker v. Ruth Brouwer

582 F. App'x 540

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 10, 2014·No. 13-40983·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Arthur Joyal Barker, Texas prisoner # 1290750, is appealing from the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding. We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213-14, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

Barker failed to file a timely notice of appeal following the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion or a timely motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Consequently, we are without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Williams v. Chater, 87 F.3d 702, 704-06 (5th Cir.1996). Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360. Barker’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Arthur Joyal Barker, Texas prisoner # 1290750, is appealing from the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion filed in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 proceeding. We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction, sua sponte, if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213-14, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007).

Barker failed to file a timely notice of appeal following the denial of his Rule 60(b) motion or a timely motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Consequently, we are without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. See Williams v. Chater, 87 F.3d 702, 704-06 (5th Cir.1996). Therefore, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214, 127 S.Ct. 2360. Barker’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Arthur Barker v. Ruth Brouwer, 582 F. App'x 540 (5th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

582 F. App'x 540 (Arthur Barker v. Ruth Brouwer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related