EVANS V US, No. 07-5112 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2007-5112 JAMAR JAMES EVANS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. ON MOTION Before SCHALL, GAJARSA, and LINN Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER The United States moves to dismiss Jamar James Evans appeal as untimely. Evans submits correspondence that we treat as a motion to reopen the time to file an appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). We consider whether a remand to the United States Court of Federal Claims is appropriate. The trial court entered judgment dismissing Evans complaint on January 5, 2007. Evans filed his notice of appeal on April 27, 2007, beyond the 60-day time period provided for by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Thus, Evans appeal is untimely. However, Evans states that he did not receive notice of the January 5 trial court opinion until April 19, 2007. Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), the trial court may reopen the time to appeal in certain circumstances if it finds that a party did not receive notice of entry of judgment. Evans appears to seek relief pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6). However, such relief may only be granted by a trial court. Thus, we determine that the better course is to remand to the Court of Federal Claims for the limited purpose of determining whether the time to appeal should be reopened pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The motion to dismiss is held in abeyance. (2) The case is remanded to the Court of Federal Claims for the limited purpose of determining whether the time to appeal should be reopened pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). (3) The briefing schedule is stayed. (4) The United States is directed to notify the court within 14 days of a ruling by the Court of Federal Claims concerning Evans Rule 4(a)(6) motion. Evans may also respond within that time. FOR THE COURT June 6, 2007 Date cc: /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk Jamar James Evans Joan Stentiford, Esq. s17 2007-5112 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.