Opinion
23-1246
08-30-2023
LOUIS M. CORDOVA, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NICHOLAS SANCHEZ, D.P.D. Officer #P19-062; JOHN/JANE DOE; JOHN/JANE DOE; JOHN/JANE DOE, Defendants - Appellees.
(D.C. No. 1:23-CV-00042-GPG-NRN) (D. Colo.)
Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, MATHESON, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Pro se plaintiff-appellant Louis M. Cordova seeks appellate review of the District of Colorado's dismissal of his civil action. This matter is before the court on: (1) the jurisdictional show cause order it issued on August 2, 2023; and (2) Mr. Cordova's response to that order. Upon consideration of these filings, the district court docket, and the applicable law, the court dismisses the appeal as untimely filed for the reasons set forth below.
"A timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional," Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted), and this court has no authority to make equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements, see Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 216 (2007), or to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. Savage v. Cache Valley Dairy Ass'n, 737 F.2d 887, 889 (10th Cir. 1984).
In a civil case like this one, an appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal in a civil case in which the United States is not a defendant "must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from"). Mr. Cordova is obligated to comply with these time requirements even though he is proceeding on appeal without the benefit of an attorney. See Mayfield v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 647 F.2d 1053, 1055 (10th Cir. 1981) (dismissing pro se appeal filed three days late).
"[Rule 4(a)] is clear . . . that the appeal period is triggered by the date the judgment was entered, not the date a party receives a copy of the judgment." Williams v. United States, 810 Fed.Appx. 698, 700 (10th Cir. 2020) (unpublished). Indeed, even complete "[l]ack of notice of the entry [of judgment] does not affect the time for appeal or relieve-or authorize the court to relieve-a party for failing to appeal within the time allowed ...." Fed.R.Civ.P. 77(d)(2).
The district court entered final judgment in this matter on June 23, 2023, and Mr. Cordova did not file any post-judgment motions. Accordingly, Mr. Cordova's notice of appeal was due on July 24, 2023. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal in a civil case "must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from"); Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C) (when a deadline falls on a Saturday or Sunday, "the period continue to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday").
Mr. Cordova did not sign his notice of appeal or deposit it with prison officials until July 27, 2023, and this court did not receive it as a misdirected notice of appeal until July 31, 2023. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d) (providing that "[i]f a notice of appeal . . . is mistakenly filed in the court of appeals," the notice is considered filed in the district court on the date it was received in the court of appeals). Mr. Cordova's notice of appeal is thus not timely as received and likewise is not timely under the prison mailbox rule. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1).
As a result, "[t]he time limit has run and [this court is] without jurisdiction under the facts of this case." Jenkins v. Burtzloff, 69 F.2d 460, 464 (10th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, the court dismisses Mr. Cordova's appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.