Jeffrey Pleasant v. Wendell Pixley, No. 16-7626 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7626 JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WENDELL W. PIXLEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00416-REP-RCY) Submitted: March 30, 2017 Decided: April 4, 2017 Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it as successive. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Pleasant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. In civil actions in which the federal government is not a party, parties are accorded 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on September 15, 2016. 10, 2016. Pleasant The notice of appeal was filed on November Although that he the had district 60 court days appeal, to erroneously the informed jurisdictional nature of the filing requirement and Pleasant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprive this court of jurisdiction. See id. at equitable Accordingly, 214 (“[T]his exceptions we deny dismiss the appeal. to leave Court has no authority jurisdictional to proceed in to create requirements.”). forma pauperis and We dispense with oral argument because the 2 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
