Case: 23-1456 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 06/13/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
MATTIE LOMAX,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
LUIS G. MONTALDO, SHIRLEY SHABAZZ,
MICHAEL HENDERSON, LISA LESUER,
CHARLENE STAFFORD, TANYA WATKING, ALAN
ADRIAN TAYLOR,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2023-1456
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida in No. 1:09-cv-23293-KMM,
Judge K. Michael Moore.
______________________
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
In response to this court’s order directing the parties to
address whether this appeal should be dismissed, Luis G.
Montaldo urges dismissal. Mattie Lomax opposes dismis-
sal and requests summary judgment. Because we lack ju-
risdiction, we must dismiss the appeal.
Case: 23-1456 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 06/13/2023
2 LOMAX v. MONTALDO
Ms. Lomax brought suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that the
Clerk and other employees of the state’s Eleventh Judicial
Circuit of Florida conspired to deprive her of certain con-
stitutional rights. On January 11, 2011, the district court
dismissed her complaint. In March 2011, the district court
denied reconsideration. The district court has since denied
several submissions filed by Ms. Lomax. In particular, on
January 22, 2020, the district court struck as “frivolous and
vexatious” her “emergency notice of removal” filed that
same day. ECF No. 1-2 at 31. On January 23, 2023, Ms.
Lomax filed this appeal seeking review of that order.
“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case
is a jurisdictional requirement,” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.
205, 214 (2007), and, in order to be timely, a notice of ap-
peal must generally be filed within 30 days after entry of
final judgment, 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(1)(A). Here, Ms. Lomax filed her notice of appeal three
years after the January 2020 order she identified in her
notice of appeal. At least because of this untimeliness, we
lack jurisdiction over the appeal, and we cannot transfer
under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 because the appeal would not be
timely in any other court of appeals.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
FOR THE COURT
June 13, 2023 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Date Jarrett B. Perlow
Acting Clerk of Court