Portis v. Harris County, Tex.
| Decision Date | 08 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1292,80-1292 |
| Citation | 632 F.2d 486 |
| Parties | Velma PORTIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS, et al., Defendants-Appellants. Summary Calendar. . Unit A |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
David H. Melasky, Anthony D. Sheppard, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellants.
Mark T. McDonald, Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before CHARLES CLARK, REAVLEY and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
On June 27, 1975 Velma Portis filed this class action against Harris County and its Manpower Agency alleging racial discrimination in employment. The case went to trial in November 1979 and on November 21, 1979, the district judge filed findings of fact and conclusions of law wherein he found that Portis was entitled to back pay and attorney's fees. A hearing on attorney's fees was held in January 1980 and final judgment was filed on February 22, 1980. On March 4, 1980, Harris County, the appellants here, filed a timely motion to reform the judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). At the same time they filed a notice of appeal. An amended final judgment was filed on March 10.
We dismiss the appeal due to our lack of jurisdiction. The appellant filed the Rule 59 motion and notice of appeal at the same time. Under Rule 4, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a), the filing of a timely Rule 59(e) motion 9 Moore's Federal Practice P 204.12(1) (2d ed. 1980). When the Rule 59(e) motion was timely filed, the judgment of the district court was no longer a final judgment. The judgment became final only after the disposition of the Rule 59(e) motion on March 10. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) requires that the notice of appeal be filed within 30 days of that final judgment, which was not done here. A timely notice of appeal is necessary for this court to have authority to act. Hardy v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 599 F.2d 628, 629 (5th Cir. 1979). Accordingly, we must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Holland (In re Holland)
...a timely Rule 59(e) motion opens the judgment and destroys the finality of thejudgment for purposes of appeal); Portis v. Harris County, Tex., 632 F.2d 486, 487 (5th Cir. 1980). The timely filing of a Rule 59 motion does not, however, "deprive a judgment of finality for res judicata purpose......
-
Lapeyrouse v. Texaco, Inc.
...notice of appeal, and, under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4), we would have been without jurisdiction to hear the appeal, see Portis v. Harris County, 632 F.2d 486, 487 (5th Cir.1980). The district court found, however, that the motion for rehearing was filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Such a motion fo......
-
Sword v. Shillinger
...and a notice of appeal are combined in one document the notice of appeal is premature and has no effect. See Portis v. Harris County, Texas, 632 F.2d 486 (5th Cir.1980).... After receiving a ruling on the timely motion, the appellant is required to file a new notice of appeal in accordance ......
-
Skagerberg v. State of Okl., 86-1293
...and a notice of appeal are combined in one document the notice of appeal is premature and has no effect. See Portis v. Harris County, Texas, 632 F.2d 486 (5th Cir.1980) (Rule 59 motion and notice of appeal were filed in the same document). After receiving a ruling on the timely motion, the ......