John Vallair, III v. Mitch Wood, et al, No. 12-41210 (5th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 12-41210 Document: 00512310837 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/17/2013 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED July 17, 2013 No. 12-41210 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JOHN A. VALLAIR, III, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MITCH WOOD, Sheriff; UP HAYES, MD; UP VEGA, Officer, Law Library; UP MINTOR, Lieutenant; UP DUBUIS, Captain; UP MILLS, Lieutenant, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:08-CV-388 Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant John A. Vallair, III, Texas prisoner # 1690304, appeals the district court s judgment that dismissed his 42 U.S.C. §1983 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Vallair urges that his complaint was wrongly dismissed and seeks to have his claims reconsidered by the district court. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR . R. 47.5.4. Case: 12-41210 Document: 00512310837 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/17/2013 No. 12-41210 We must examine the basis of our jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213-14 (2007). Within thirty days following entry of judgment on September 23, 2011, Vallair filed a Petition to Appeal Order, which was treated as a timely notice of appeal and docketed in this court. Vallair subsequently dismissed that appeal voluntarily, however, and did not file another notice of appeal until October 22, 2012. It was untimely with respect to the underlying judgment, and there were no other appealable orders in the case. Therefore, the latter appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Bowles, 551 U.S. at 213-14. 2
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.
