Padilla v. Quintero, No. 21-40055 (5th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-40055 Document: 00516544178 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/14/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 14, 2022 No. 21-40055 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Rosendo Padilla, Jr., Plaintiff—Appellant, versus Thomas Quintero, Defendant—Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:19-CV-119 Before Davis, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Rosendo Padilla, Jr., federal prisoner # 89203-179, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint and the denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment. He argues that the district court considered extraneous documents and matters outside of the complaint, thereby triggering Federal * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 21-40055 Document: 00516544178 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/14/2022 No. 21-40055 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) and requiring the defendant’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings to be treated as one for summary judgment. Accordingly, he maintains that the district court erred by granting the defendant’s motion without an evidentiary hearing because there were still contestable issues of fact. Padilla further argues that the district court erred by determining that the notice of appeal divested it of jurisdiction to consider his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. Where, as here, a litigant files a timely Rule 59(e) motion and a notice of appeal, the notice of appeal does not become effective until the entry of the order disposing of the motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), (B)(i); Burt v. Ware, 14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994). Thus, the district court retained jurisdiction to dispose of Padilla’s Rule 59(e) motion. See Simmons v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. of Tex., 310 F.3d 865, 868-70 (5th Cir. 2002); Burt, 14 F.3d at 261. Accordingly, the district court erred in denying Padilla’s Rule 59(e) motion for lack of jurisdiction. The order of the district court denying the Rule 59(e) motion is REVERSED, and the matter is REMANDED for proper consideration. Padilla’s motion to remand is DENIED as moot. 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.
