Michael Webb v. D. Sisto , 384 F. App'x 649 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JUN 18 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MICHAEL WEBB,                                      No. 08-17003
    Petitioner - Appellant,           D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01879-FCD-
    DAD
    v.
    D. K. SISTO, Warden; EDMUND G.                     MEMORANDUM *
    BROWN, Jr.,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Frank C. Damrell, Senior United States District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 16, 2010 **
    San Francisco, California
    Before: SCHROEDER and BYBEE, Circuit Judges, and STOTLER, District
    Judge.***
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    ***
    The Honorable Alicemarie Stotler, Senior United States District Judge
    for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.
    Petitioner Michael Webb appeals the order of the district court denying his
    petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Webb concedes that he filed his notice of
    appeal thirty-one days after the district court entered judgment. A notice of appeal
    in a civil case “must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the
    judgment or order appealed from is entered.” Fed R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). “An
    appeal from a denial of habeas petition is considered a ‘civil’ matter and is thus
    subject to the time limitations set forth in rule 4(a)” of the Federal Rules of
    Appellate Procedure. Malone v. Avenenti, 
    850 F.2d 569
    , 571 (9th Cir. 1988). Rule
    4(a) “is both mandatory and jurisdictional” because “Congress . . . specifically
    limited our jurisdiction to hear civil appeals at 
    28 U.S.C. § 2107
    (a), which codifies
    the same time constraints on the filing of civil appeals . . . that exist in Rule 4(a).”
    United States v. Sadler, 
    480 F.3d 932
    , 937 (9th Cir. 2007) (emphasis removed).
    We “must dismiss civil appeals that are untimely for lack of jurisdiction . . . .” 
    Id.
    DISMISSED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-17003

Citation Numbers: 384 F. App'x 649

Judges: Bybee, Schroeder, Stotler

Filed Date: 6/18/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024