Mark Koch v. James G. Ricketts

Bad Law
68 F.3d 1191·95 Daily Journal DAR 14060·1995 WL 613969·32 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1086·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 29437
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 19, 199592-16517California1,787 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wiggins, J.

Mark Koch appeals from the district court’s ruling on remand that his original notice of appeal was untimely. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse on the ground of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(e).

I. Background

Mark Koch was one of several Arizona state prisoners who sued prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged violations of the prisoners’ constitutional rights during an anal cavity search by prison guards. The case was tried before a jury, which found that prison officials had violated the prisoners’ rights under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments, but that the prison officials were entitled to a defense of qualified immunity. Koch appealed, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding of qualified immunity. Vaughan v. Ricketts, 950 F.2d 1464 (9th Cir.1991).

The Vaughan court was unable to address the merits of Koch’s appeal without first deciding whether Koch’s notice of appeal was timely filed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). Rule 4(a) establishes a thirty-day time limit for the filing of appeals that is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Bird v. Reese, 875 F.2d 256, 256-57 (9th…

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.