Corrigan

Corrigan v. Bargala

Good Law
140 F.3d 815·1998 WL 142332
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 31, 1998No. 96-36254California2,179 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Alarcon, J.

John L. Corrigan, Jr., (“Corrigan”) appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his motion to extend time to appeal from the order dismissing his complaint, and from the denial of his motion for reconsideration of that order. Corrigan contends that his motion to extend the time to file an appeal under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should have been granted because his failure to notify the proper court of a change in his address constituted “excusable neglect.” Corrigan further contends that the district court should have remanded back to state court instead of dismissing his action because it lacked jurisdiction.

We do not reach these questions because the clerk failed to enter a separate judgment on the order dismissing Corrigan’s complaint, as required by Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court lacked the authority to consider the merits of Corrigan’s motion to extend the time to appeal. The time to file a notice of appeal does not begin until the clerk has entered a judgment that complies with the requirements of Rule 58. Therefore, we must vacate the orders denying Corrigan’s motion to extend time to appeal and…

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.