Mosley v. Cozby, 86-1832

Citation813 F.2d 659
Decision Date23 March 1987
Docket NumberNo. 86-1832,86-1832
PartiesMarion Ray MOSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Officer M.D. COZBY, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)

Marion Ray Mosley, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, GARWOOD and ROBERT MADDEN HILL, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary. Thompson v. Betts, 754 F.2d 1243, 1245 (5th Cir.1985). An examination of this case discloses no effective notice of appeal.

Plaintiff Mosley filed suit against one named and two "John Doe" Dallas policemen. He alleged that they violated his civil rights by falsely arresting him on September 15, 1983. He asked for declaratory relief and $750,000 in damages. Prior to service, the district court, by order entered July 21, 1986, dismissed the complaint, holding that the suit is a challenge to the legality of the conviction and that Mosley must first exhaust state remedies; the court also held that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. The order directed that the defendants be served with a copy of the complaint and of the order. Mosley responded to the dismissal order by filing on August 19, 1986 a pleading denominated "Motion to Reconsider Order or in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to Take an Interlocutory Appeal In Forma Pauperis." There is no indication that this motion was served on any party. The motion is dated August 1, 1986. The district court took no action respecting this motion. On September 29, service was effected and returned on the one individually named defendant. On November 10, 1986, Mosley filed a request for a hearing on his August 19 motion, pointing out that the court had not acted on it. On November 17, 1986, the court issued a Fed.R.App.P. 24 certificate, stating that the appeal is not taken in good faith, is frivolous, and that Mosley is a pauper.

The August 19 motion seeks, alternatively to reconsideration, permission for an interlocutory appeal. A document filed in the period prescribed by Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1) for taking an appeal should be construed as a notice of appeal if the document "clearly evinces the party's intent to appeal." Cobb v. Lewis, 488 F.2d 41, 45 (5th Cir.1974) (quoted in Briggs v. Procunier, 764 F.2d 368, 370 (5th Cir.1985)). Because the primary relief sought in Mosley's August 19 pleading is reconsideration, and leave to appeal is sought only if reconsideration is denied, we conclude that the document does not "clearly evince[ ] [his] intent to appeal." We reached the same conclusion regarding a similar document in our unpublished opinion in Schoemaker v. Evans, 787 F.2d 586 (5th Circuit 1986).

We observe that the July 21, 1986 order of dismissal may not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 58's requirement that a judgment be entered on a "separate document." The order recites background procedural information, the reasons for dismissal, and citations of authority, in addition to language dismissing the case. See 6A J. Moore & J. Grotheer, Moore's Federal Practice p 58.02 at 58-15 to 58-17 (2d ed. 1986). Rule 58 provides that: "A judgment is effective only...

To continue reading

Request your trial
350 cases
  • Birmingham v. Ogden, 97 Civ. 8057(CM).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • October 8, 1999
    ...complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the accompanying objections become moot and need not be determined); Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987) (noting that before addressing the merits of any claim, a federal court must examine the basis of federal jurisdiction),......
  • Doe v. Hillsboro Independent School Dist., 94-50709
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 23, 1996
    ...of this appeal that the Defendants failed altogether to investigate the criminal histories of prospective employees.8 Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987) ("This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.").9 Doe has asserted a Title IX c......
  • International Ass'n of Machinists v. Goodrich
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • May 18, 2005
    ...raised by either party, the unusual procedural posture of this case has led us to question our jurisdiction sua sponte. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987) ("This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary."). The issue before us is wheth......
  • Hart v. O'Brien, 96-40151
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • November 6, 1997
    ...U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2511, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). III We must first examine the basis of our jurisdiction. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). A court of appeals has jurisdiction of appeals from all final district court decisions. 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Under the collate......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT