IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 29, 2007
No. 06-20916
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
RONALD X GORDON
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TEXAS FIRST BANK - TEXAS CITY
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:06-CV-2905
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ronald X. Gordon has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis
(IFP) and other motions in this appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his
civil complaint for lack of jurisdiction and denial of his motion for leave to appeal
IFP.
“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion,
if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). “[T]he timely
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 06-20916
filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles
v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360, 2366 (2007).
Within ten days of the district court’s judgment, Gordon filed 1) an
October 17, 2006, amended complaint and an emergency application for
injunctive relief, 2) an October 18, 2006, “application for immediate emergency
relief for governmental intervention for enforcement of act of congress,” and
3) an October 31, 2006, “relator’s statement of emergency for enforcement of act
of congress.” We construe Gordon’s motions as timely seeking relief under
FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), rendering the notice of appeal ineffective until the district
court enters an order disposing of the motions. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).
Gordon’s notice of appeal is, therefore, ineffective.
Consequently, this case must be remanded, and the record returned, so
that the district court may rule on Gordon’s post-judgment motions “as
expeditiously as possible, consistent with a just and fair disposition thereof.”
Burt v. Ware, 14 F.3d 256, 261 (5th Cir. 1994). The clerk of this court shall
process the appeal immediately upon the return of the case from the district
court.
LIMITED REMAND; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE.
2