Paul Gulbenkian v. Inryco, Inc.

Good Law
42 F.3d 1399·1994 WL 659050·1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 39447
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 22, 199494-15029California615 words

Opinion

Opinion

42 F.3d 1399 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Paul GULBENKIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INRYCO, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-15029. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 14, 1994. * Decided Nov. 22, 1994. Before: WALLACE, Chief Judge, GOODWIN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Paul Gulbenkian appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his in forma pauperis complaint. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 3 A timely filed notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). In a civil case, the notice of appeal from a district court's judgment must be filed within thirty days of the date of judgment. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1); Malone v. Avenenti, 850 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.1988). The appellant may obtain an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of good cause or excusable neglect. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5); Malone, 850 F.2d…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.