Hall v. Legg ( 1999 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 98-20559
    Summary Calendar
    VICTOR LEE HALL,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    THERESA A. LEGG; E.D. MURDOCK,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Texas
    USDC No. 96-CV-3719
    - - - - - - - - - -
    July 29, 1999
    Before KING, Chief Judge, HIGGINBOTHAM and EMILIO M. GARZA,
    Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    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).    An examination of the record in this case discloses
    that the notice of appeal is ineffective.
    Victor Lee Hall, prisoner #624871, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.
    The final judgment was entered on April 23, 1998.     On April 22,
    1998, Hall filed a motion for new trial and amendment of
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    judgment.   On June 19, 1998, after being granted an extension of
    time in which to file his appeal, Hall filed his notice of
    appeal.   The district court has not ruled on the motion for new
    trial and amendment of judgment.
    Rule 4(a)(4), Fed. R. App. P., provides that, if a timely
    motion is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59, a notice of appeal
    filed after entry of the judgment, but before disposition of the
    motion, is ineffective until the entry of the order disposing of
    the motion.   A motion for new trial is a Rule 59(b) motion and a
    motion to alter or amend judgment is a Rule 59(e) motion.    Hall’s
    motion was filed within the 10-day limit for Rule 59 motions.
    See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(b), (e).
    As the Rule 59 motion has not yet been disposed of, the
    petitioner’s notice of appeal is ineffective.   See Burt v. Ware,
    
    14 F.3d 256
    , 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994).   Accordingly, the case must
    be remanded, and the record returned to the district court, for
    consideration of the outstanding motion.
    REMANDED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 98-20559

Filed Date: 7/29/1999

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021