Robinson v. Little

Restoney Robinson filed a notice of appeal and a mandamus petition challenging the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1988) action and imposing a prefiling injunction on further actions filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

In No. 94-7426, Robinson noticed the appeal outside the thirty-day appeal period established by Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day period provided by Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to relief under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods established by Fed. R.App. P. 4 are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Robinson's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this Court of jurisdiction to consider this case.

In No. 94-8095, the mandamus petition, Robinson seeks an order rescinding the district court's order. Mandamus relief is not available because Robinson has another available remedy, namely to file a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration. In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.1987).

For these reasons, in No. 94-7426, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. In No. 94-8095, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but deny the petition.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.