Reginald C. Howard, Petitioner-appellant, v. Gary True, et al., Respondents-appellees, 953 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1992)
Annotate this CaseBefore SNEED, SCHROEDER and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
Reginald C. Howard, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. We dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Howard had a timely Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration pending in the district court, which renders his notice of appeal ineffective. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (4); Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 523 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 974 (1991).1 Because Howard never filed a new notice of appeal after the district court denied the Rule 59(e) motion, this court has no jurisdiction over his appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) (4); Tinsley, 895 F.2d at 523.
DISMISSED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Circuit R. 36-3
We construe Howard's "Motion for Reconsideration" as a motion brought under Rule 59(e). See Whittaker v. Whittaker Corp., 639 F.2d 516, 520-21 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1031 (1981)
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
