Calderon Lopez v. Silberman

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Calderon Lopez v. Silberman

Opinion

Case: 24-2000 Document: 2 Page: 1 Filed: 07/23/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RICARDO JOSE CALDERON LOPEZ, dba Starlight Consulting Services, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

DAVID ABRAHAM SILBERMAN, ANDREW ARMANDO, SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, SAN MATEO, CA, Defendants-Appellees ______________________

2024-2000 ______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 3:18-cv-00747-MMC, Judge Maxine M. Chesney. ______________________

PER CURIAM. ORDER On February 5, 2018, Ricardo Jose Calderon Lopez filed a complaint asserting, among other things, civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against local gov- ernmental entities and employees. The district court’s Feb- ruary 6, 2018 order denied Mr. Calderon Lopez leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and after he failed to pay the filing fee, the district court dismissed the case on March 14, Case: 24-2000 Document: 2 Page: 2 Filed: 07/23/2024

2 CALDERON LOPEZ v. SILBERMAN

2018. Mr. Calderon Lopez appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which dismissed his appeal as frivolous on July 16, 2018. On June 17, 2024, Mr. Calderon Lopez filed a notice of appeal directed to this court from a decision entered “02/06/2018” in the district court action. “[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 (2007), and, in order to be timely, a notice of ap- peal must generally be filed within 30 days after entry of final judgment, 28 U.S.C. § 2107; Fed. R. App. P. 4. Here, Mr. Calderon Lopez’s notice of appeal, filed over six years after the district court’s February 6, 2018 decision, is clearly untimely. For at least this reason, we and any other court of appeals lack jurisdiction. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

July 23, 2024 Date

Reference

Status
Unpublished