Arthur Barker v. Ruth Brouwer

Fifth Circuit

Arthur Barker v. Ruth Brouwer

582 F. App'x 540

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 2014

Docket13-40983

StatusUnpublished

This text of 582 F. App'x 540 (Arthur Barker v. Ruth Brouwer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 F. App'x 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arthur-barker-v-ruth-brouwer-ca5-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack