Hill v. Ware
This text of Hill v. Ware (Hill v. Ware) 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.
Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 01-10645 _____________________
MACK ORAN HILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
TRAVIS SCOTT WARE,
Defendant - Appellee
--------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas --------------------- May 31, 2001
Before: KING, Chief Judge, JOLLY, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
CAROLYN DINEEN KING, Chief Judge:
Mack Oran Hill, a Texas death-row inmate with an execution
date of June 6, 2001, filed a pro se civil rights lawsuit
against the prosecutor at his capital murder trial, alleging
various acts of prosecutorial misconduct. The district court
dismissed the case for failure to state a claim on which relief
may be granted. Although no briefing schedule has been set,
Hill also requests a 30 day extension of time to file his
brief. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on
its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659,
660 (5th Cir. 1987). Final judgment was entered in this case
on April 10, 2001. The date on the “verification” in Hill’s
notice of appeal is May 11, 2001, and the certificate of
service is dated May 12, 2001.
Rule 4(a)(1)(A), Fed. R. App. P., requires that the notice
of appeal in a civil case be filed within 30 days of entry of
the judgment or order appealed from. In the case of an inmate,
the notice is timely if it is deposited in the prison mail
system on or before the last day for filing. Rule 4(c)(1).
Hill’s notice of appeal shows on its face that it could not
have been put in the prison mail system within the time
allowed. The time limitation for filing a notice of appeal is
jurisdictional, and the lack of a timely notice mandates
dismissal of the appeal. Mann v. Lynaugh, 840 F.2d 1194, 1197
(5th Cir. 1988).
APPEAL DISMISSED, MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
BRIEF DENIED AS MOOT.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Hill v. Ware, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-ware-ca5-2001.