Case: 23-1734 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 08/22/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MATTIE LOMAX,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
WAL-MART STORES EAST, MARIE ELENA
CASTILLO, JESSY FAIR, CARLOS ESPINOSA,
SIGFREDO GOMEZ,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2023-1734
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida in No. 1:09-cv-20901-CMA,
Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.
______________________
ON MOTION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
Mattie Lomax moves to waive Public Access to Court
Electronic Records (PACER) fees, ECF No. 6. Having con-
sidered Ms. Lomax’s response to this court’s May 22, 2023,
order to show cause, we dismiss and deny her motion.
Case: 23-1734 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 08/22/2023
2 LOMAX v. WAL-MART STORES EAST
“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case
is a jurisdictional requirement,” Bowles v. Russell,
551 U.S.
205, 214 (2007), and, in order to be timely, a notice of ap-
peal must generally be filed within 30 days after entry of
final judgment,
28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A). Here, Ms. Lomax filed her notice of appeal more
than 12 years after the district court order she seeks to ap-
peal. At least because of this untimeliness, we lack juris-
diction over the appeal, and we cannot transfer under
28 U.S.C. § 1631 because the appeal would not be timely in
any other court of appeals.
We note that in the past three months, this court has
dismissed at least three other appeals by Ms. Lomax for
similar untimeliness. See Lomax v. Miami Police Dep’t, No.
2023-1504, slip op. at 1–2 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2023) (ten
years late); Lomax v. Cap. Rental Agency, Inc., No. 2023-
1458, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. June 8, 2023) (13 years late);
Lomax v. Montaldo, No. 2023-1456, slip op. at 2 (Fed. Cir.
June 13, 2023) (three years late). Ms. Lomax is now well
aware of the jurisdictional timeliness requirements and is
warned that continuing to file such appeals, or prosecuting
such appeals already filed, may constitute abuse of the ju-
dicial process warranting sanctions.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) The motion to waive PACER fees is denied.
(3) Each side shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
August 22, 2023 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Date Jarrett B. Perlow
Clerk of Court
