Paul Anthony Aquino v. Department of Head City of Salinas

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
PAUL ANTHONY AQUINO,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HEAD CITY OF SALINAS,
Defendant-Appellee
______________________
2024-1972
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Central District of California in No. 2:24-cv-02491-KK-
ADS, Judge Kenly K. Kato.
______________________
Before TARANTO, STOLL, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Following this court’s show cause order, which neither
party responded to, we now dismiss this appeal.
In orders dated May 7, 2024, and May 10, 2024, the
district court directed Paul Anthony Aquino to either pay
the filing fee or provide additional information in support
of his in forma pauperis (IFP) request. On June 13, 2024,
Case: 24-1972 Document: 4 Page: 1 Filed: 02/27/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

AQUINO v. DEPARTMENT OF HEAD CITY OF SALINAS 2
Mr. Aquino filed a notice of appeal directed to this court
seeking review from a decision entered “05/06/2024.”1
In general, courts only have jurisdiction over appeals if
the decisions appealed are final decisions. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1291; 1295(a). Final decisions are those that “end[] the
litigation on the merits and leave[] nothing for the court to
do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324
U.S. 229, 233 (1945). No such decision has been entered in
this case. While the denial of leave to proceed IFP is gen-
erally an immediately appealable ruling, Roberts v. U.S.
Dist. Ct. for the N. Dist. of Cal., 339 U.S. 844, 845 (1950),
the district court has not yet made any definitive ruling on
Mr. Aquino’s IFP status. Since no court would have juris-
diction under these circumstances, we dismiss.2
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
1 No decision from that date appears on the trial
docket.
2 We would reach the same bottom-line conclusion
here, i.e., dismissal, even if the May 7th and May 10th orders
could be construed as denying IFP status. “[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).
To be timely, Mr. Aquino had to file his notice of appeal
within 30 days of the entry of the order or judgment from
which he seeks review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R.
App. P. 4. To the extent Mr. Aquino seeks review of either
of those orders, he failed to file a notice of appeal within
the jurisdictional deadline for doing so.
Case: 24-1972 Document: 4 Page: 2 Filed: 02/27/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

AQUINO v. DEPARTMENT OF HEAD CITY OF SALINAS 3
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
February 27, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 24-1972 Document: 4 Page: 3 Filed: 02/27/2025

-- 3 of 3 --