WASHINGTON v. CLARKE (2020)

The district court accepted the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissed Torrey Lavell Washington's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) on March 18, 2019. Washington filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from judgment in May 2019; the district court construed that motion as an unauthorized successive § 2254 petition and dismissed it on June 26, 2019 for lack of jurisdiction, because Washington had not obtained prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2018); United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-400 (4th Cir. 2015).

In appeal No. 19-7053, Washington appeals the district court's order dismissing his original habeas petition with prejudice. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 175-76 (4th Cir. 2014) (noting we construe requirements of Rule 3 liberally to ascertain whether notice of appeal complies with those requirements). In appeal No. 19-7180, he appeals the district court's dismissal of his successive § 2254 petition. We dismiss both appeals for lack of jurisdiction because the notices of appeal were not timely filed.

In civil cases, parties have 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, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 168 L.Ed.2d 96 (2007). The district court entered its orders on March 18 and June 26, and Washington filed the corresponding notices of appeal on July 11 and August 7, respectively. Because Washington failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period in either case, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

PER CURIAM:

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.