Saunders v. Cabinet Makers and Millmen, Local 721, 75-2869
| Decision Date | 03 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-2869,75-2869 |
| Citation | 549 F.2d 1216 |
| Parties | 13 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 11,417 Claude E. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CABINET MAKERS AND MILLMEN, LOCAL 721, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Claude E. Saunders, in pro per.
Howard Z. Rosen, of Geffner & Satzman, Inc., Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Before CHAMBERS and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, * District Judge.
Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint against the defendant Union on May 3, 1974, alleging that while he was employed at Northrup Architectural Systems the Union purposely excluded him from membership because of his race, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(c)(1). Both sides filed motions for summary judgment, and on December 12, 1974, judgment was entered granting defendant Union's motions, denying plaintiff's motion, and dismissing his complaint. Plaintiff allegedly did not personally learn of the district court's disposition until he ran across the order on January 3, 1975. On January 9, 1975, plaintiff filed what he labeled a "motion for rehearing" in the district court, which treated the motion as one to alter or amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) and denied it on June 26, 1975. On July 25, 1975, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the district court's denial of his 59(e) motion and apparently from the underlying December 12, 1974, judgment dismissing his complaint as well.
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a), notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 30 days of the date of entry of the judgment appealed from. The running of this 30-day period is terminated by a timely motion filed in the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), but such motion must be timely made. 9 Moore's Federal Practice, P 204.12(1)-(2), at 949-60 (1975). A motion to alter or amend the judgment must be filed within 10 days after entry of judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). If this is properly done, then the running of the 30-day period for filing notice of appeal under FRAP 4(a) is tolled until entry of an order by the district court disposing of the Rule 59(e) motion, at which time the full period begins to run anew.
In this case, plaintiff failed to file his notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of the district court's judgment as required by FRAP 4(a). The running of this 30-day period was not tolled by the plaintiff's filing of his "motion for rehearing" under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), since that motion was not filed with 10 days of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cel-A-Pak v. California Agr. Labor Relations Bd., CEL-A-PAK
...circumvent the established rule that such a motion does not toll the appeal limitations period. See Saunders v. Cabinet Makers & Millmen, Local 720, 549 F.2d 1216, 1217 (9th Cir. 1977). The motion for injunction pending appeal presents a closer question since it indicates appellant contempl......
-
Selph v. Council of City of Los Angeles
...556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978); United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960); Saunders v. Cabinet Makers and Millmen, 549 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir. 1977). The district court had no authority to grant an extension of time beyond the provisions of that rule. Smith v. Unit......
-
Crumpton v. United States
...and evidentiary hearing did not toll the running of time to file notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)); Saunders v. Cabinet Makers and Millmen, Local 721, 549 F.2d 1216, 1216-17 (9th Cir. 1977) (same result with untimely motion for rehearing, treated as motion pursuant to Rule 59(e), Federal Ru......
-
Henderson v. Gruntz, 88-6256
...does not begin running until the district court disposes of the motion for reconsideration. See generally Saunders v. Cabinet Makers and Millmen Local 721, 549 F.2d 1216 (9th Cir.1977); Clipper Express v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff, 690 F.2d 1240, 1247 (9th In this case, appellant appeals ......