15 F. 3d 1083 - Bhushan

MEMORANDUM**

Monika Bhushan and various individuals (collectively "Bushan") appeal the district court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Berkeley (City) in Bushan's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action alleging violations of their civil rights. The City contends that we lack jurisdiction because Bhushan's notice of appeal is untimely. We agree and dismiss the appeal.

A timely notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. Munden v. Ultra-Alaska Assocs., 849 F.2d 383, 386 (9th Cir.1988). In a civil case, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days "after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from...." Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1). The district court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal if a party (1) moves for an extension of time no later than thirty days after the expiration of the original appeal period, and (2) makes a sufficient showing of good cause or excusable neglect for not meeting the original deadline. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5); Malone v. Avenenti, 850 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.1988). Where the appellant fails to seek an extension of time in the district court, we lack the authority to either grant an extension or remand to the district court for a determination regarding whether an extension was warranted. Hoag Ranches v. Stockton Production Credit Assoc., 846 F.2d 1225, 1229 (9th Cir.1988) (order).

Here, the district court's judgment was entered on September 30, 1992. Bhushan did not file a notice of appeal until November 5, 1992, beyond the thirty-day limit prescribed by Rule 4(a)(1). Bhushan also did not file a motion to extend the appellate filing deadline as set forth in Rule 4(a)(5).

Because Bhushan neither filed a timely notice of appeal nor a motion requesting an extension of time, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See Malone, 850 F.2d at 572-74; In re Hoag Ranches, 846 F.2d at 1229.

DISMISSED.