Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinions - 5th Circuit
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This opinion or court case is from the Fifth Circuit Court or Appeals. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
No. 94-40871
Summary Calendar.
Glenn CARTER and Melvin Hassan Tribbit, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Richard L. STALDER, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Aug. 9, 1995.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas.
Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
JERRY E. SMITH, Circuit Judge:
Glenn Carter and Melvin Tribbit appeal an adverse judgment in
their state prisoners' civil rights suit brought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983. For the reasons hereinafter stated, we affirm the
district court's order as to Tribbit, and dismiss Carter's appeal.
I.
Tribbit and Carter, inmates in the Louisiana Department of
Corrections at the Dixon Correctional Institute ("DCI"), filed a
civil rights complaint in federal court in the Eastern District of
Texas against Richard Stalder, secretary of the Department of
Corrections; N. Burl Cain, warden at the DCI; Reggie Felker, a
major at the DCI; and B.C. Rogers, an employee of Poultry, Inc.
The suit alleges that the plaintiffs were forced to work as slave
labor because they were required to debone chicken thighs at the
processing plant located at DCI.
The magistrate judge recommended that Tribbit not be allowed
1

to file this action because he had not paid earlier sanctions
imposed by this court.1 The magistrate judge recommended that
Carter's claim be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406 because
the Eastern District of Louisiana, not the Eastern District of
Texas, was the proper venue for that action. The magistrate judge
found that because Carter's claims were frivolous, it was not in
the interest of justice to transfer the action.
Tribbit and Carter objected to this recommendation and urged
the district court to transfer the case to the Eastern District of
Louisiana. In those objections, Tribbit did not address the
magistrate judge's recommendation that he not be allowed to file
the suit because he was under sanction from this court. The
district court overruled the objections and adopted the magistrate
judge's recommendation. The court denied Tribbit leave to file the
action and dismissed Carter's complaint without prejudice pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1406. Final judgment was entered on April 22, 1994,
and Tribbit filed a pro se notice of appeal on August 29, 1994.
Carter did not sign the notice.
II.
This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its
own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th
Cir.1987) (per curiam). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction over
1In Shakir v. Lee, 928 F.2d 401 (5th Cir.1991) (per curiam)
(unpublished), this court ordered the clerk of the U.S. District
Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana "not to accept any
future filing from [Tribbit] until the $100 fine is paid, unless
... directed to do so by" a district judge of that district. In
that case, Tribbit was proceeding under the name of Melvin Hassan
Shakir.
2

Carter's appeal.
Whether Carter has filed a valid notice of appeal presents
the same situation this court addressed in Mikeska v. Collins, 928
F.2d 126 (5th Cir.1991) (per curiam). There, we held that a
multiparty pro se notice of appeal was not effective as to any of
the pro se parties that did not sign the appeal. Id. We directed
that thenceforth, the clerk should notify the non-signers of their
right to appeal within fourteen days of the signer's appeal, as
permitted by FED.R.APP.P. 4(a)(3).
Carter was not so notified, as the clerk's office was not sure
that Tribbit's notice of appeal was timely. Following remand,
Carter did not submit any signed pleading until appellants' joint
brief, signed by both of them, was filed on May 24, 1995.2 In
Mikeska, we ensured that every reasonable effort be made to notify
non-signing pro se appellants of how to effect an appeal. We did
not enlarge--indeed, we have no authority to enlarge--the time
permitted for appeal. See FED.R.APP.P. 26(b). Accordingly, after
the fourteen days had expired, Carter could not appeal, despite the
lack of Mikeska notice.
III.
On appeal, Tribbit urges the merits of the claim he filed
below, but does not allege or argue any error in the district
court's order dismissing his case for failure to pay earlier
sanctions imposed by this Court. Because we find no error in that
2Subsequent to the filing of the first notice of appeal by
Tribbit and prior to the remand, Carter signed a motion for IFP
status that was filed on October 24, 1994.
3

order, it must be affirmed.
IV.
In summary, the district court's order dismissing Tribbit's
appeal is AFFIRMED. Carter's appeal is DISMISSED for want of
appellate jurisdiction.

4