Robert Kramer v. A. Castaneda, et al, No. 14-50472 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 31, 2016.
Download PDF
Case: 14-50472 Document: 00512993400 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 14-50472 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED April 3, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ROBERT KRAMER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER A. CASTANEDA; RUBEN SANCHEZ, John Doe #1; IMER COLLINS, Jane Doe #1-Property Officer; C. LAWSON, Regional Grievance; GORGE MOTA, John Doe #2, Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:13-CV-20 Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert Kramer, Texas prisoner # 643733, appeals the dismissal of his civil action. He also moves for the appointment of counsel and leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. After entry of the judgment dismissing his action, Kramer had 30 days to file a timely notice of appeal. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). His May 6, 2014, pro se notice of appeal was untimely. See id.; Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374, 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-50472 Document: 00512993400 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2015 No. 14-50472 376-78 (5th Cir. 1998). The timing of Kramer’s notice of appeal raises a jurisdictional question that this court must examine on its own motion, if necessary. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007); Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). A district court may extend the 30-day filing period of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(5)(A). We construe Kramer’s notice of appeal, which asserted reasons for his untimely filing, as a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A). The case is REMANDED to permit the district court to make a ruling under Rule 4(a)(5). While the case is on this limited remand, Kramer’s appeal and motions are held in abeyance. Upon ruling, the district court shall return the case to this court for dismissal or further proceedings, as may be appropriate. 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.
