Tuando

Tuando v. Prosser

Good Law
352 F. App'x 213
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 10, 2009No. 08-55668California435 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Dan Tuando appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for an extension of *214 time to file a notice of appeal and dismissal of his case for failure to comply with court orders.

Although the parties do not raise this precise issue in their briefs, our threshold inquiry is whether Tuando’s appeal is in fact timely, given that the district court did not enter a separate judgment on the order dismissing Tuando’s § 1983 suit. A judgment is not “entered” for notice of appeal purposes until a separate document has been filed, or 150 days have passed since the order was entered. Fed.R.Civ.P. 58(c)(2)(B); Fed. RApp. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(ii). Accordingly, because the district court did not enter a separate judgment on the November 20, 2007 dismissal order, that order did not constitute a final judgment until April 18, 2008. Tuando filed his notice of appeal on April 18, 2008. Thus, Tuando’s appeal is timely, and the district court’s denial of Tuando’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal is moot. Any remaining confusion as to the district court’s docket sheet is resolved in Tuando’s favor. See United States v. Depew, 210 F.3d 1061, 1065 (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.