Martin v. Wainwright, 72-1946 Summary Calendar.
| Decision Date | 17 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-1946 Summary Calendar.,72-1946 Summary Calendar. |
| Citation | 469 F.2d 1072 |
| Parties | John T. MARTIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Louis WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, etc., et al., Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
John T. Martin, pro se.
Daniel S. Dearing, Chief Trial Counsel, Dept. of Legal Affairs, Tallahassee, Fla., Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tampa, Fla., for respondents-appellees.
Before WISDOM, GODBOLD and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from the district court's dismissal of a Civil Rights action1 filed by an inmate of the Florida state prison at Raiford, Florida. In his complaint the appellant contended that the prison officials were denying him adequate medical attention, and he sought an order directing them to place him in a hospital other than the prison's clinic for treatment. After a response was filed which included exhibits of the appellant's prison hospital records, the district court denied relief, finding that the appellant had failed to show that there had been any abuse of the prison officials' wide latitude of discretion in treating him. It is from this ruling that the appellant seeks review.
We have concluded that this Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal because our examination of the record shows that the appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal as required by Rule 4(a), F.R.A.P.
After the district court dismissed the complaint on October 19, 1971, the appellant manifested no dissatisfaction with the ruling until December 30, 1971, or some 72 days after entry of judgment, at which time he filed a petition for rehearing. The petition was subsequently denied.
The provisions of Rule 59(b), F.R.Civ.P., make it clear that such a motion for new trial or for reconsideration must be filed within ten days of the court's judgment. The time requirement of Rule 59(b) is jurisdictional; for the court lacks authority to rule upon a motion filed beyond the statutory period. Albers v. Gant, 5th Cir. 1970, 435 F.2d 146. Moreover, an untimely motion will not toll the time for taking an appeal. Hulson v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 7th Cir. 1961, 289 F.2d 726, cert. denied 1961, 368 U.S. 835, 82 S.Ct. 61, 7 L.Ed.2d 36. Cf. Maryland Tuna Corp. v. MS Benares, 2nd Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 307.
Since the record in this case affirmatively discloses that no document which might reasonably be construed as a notice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. U.S., 75-3019
...1975); Morin v. United States, 522 F.2d 8 (4th Cir. 1975); Lashley v. Ford Motor Co., 518 F.2d 749 (5th Cir. 1975); Martin v. Wainwright, 469 F.2d 1072 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 1538, 36 L.Ed.2d 199 (1973); Schaeffer v. First Nat'l Bank, 465 F.2d 234 (7th Cir. 19......
-
Jenkins v. Whittaker Corp.
...under Rule 59(e) or that timely compliance with Rule 59(e) is jurisdictional. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b) and 59(e); Martin v. Wainwright, 469 F.2d 1072, 1073 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 1538, 36 L.Ed.2d 199 (1973).40 This purpose is also suggested by the fact that Rule 5......
-
Bailey v. Sharp
...McLead & Sons Packing Co., 765 F.2d 1317, 1325 (5th Cir.1985); Gribble v. Harris, 625 F.2d 1173, 1174 (5th Cir.1980); Martin v. Wainwright, 469 F.2d 1072 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 909, 93 S.Ct. 1538, 36 L.Ed.2d 199 (1973); Fairway Center Corp. v. U.I.P. Corp., 491 F.2d 1092, 10......
-
Hoffman v. L&M Arts
...for serving Rule 59(e) motion is jurisdictional and cannot be extended in discretion of district court); Martin v. Wainwright, 469 F.2d 1072, 1073 (5th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (same). And although there is also support for the premise that a district court can grant Rule 59(e) relief sua sp......