Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01383/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01383-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

JEREMY PINSON; MIKEAL GLENN 

STINE, 

 Plaintiffs - Appellants, 

and

LEROY BUHL, 

 Plaintiff, 

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; D. 

PAYNE; C. ALVAREZ; C. COOK; M. 

THOMPSON; D. RHODES; E. 

SVENSVOLD; G. POLAND; JOHN 

OLIVER; JOHN DIGNAM, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1383

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01179-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

We raise sua sponte the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal. 

We note that Appellants previously sought review of the same decisions in the 

underlying action before final judgment had entered and were previously told that they 

were not precluded “from filing a timely appeal after entry of final judgment.” Sept. 14, 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 28, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1383 Document: 01019697542 Date Filed: 09/28/2016 Page: 1 
2

2015 Ord. at 3 in 15-1217, Pinson v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, et al. & 15-1223, Stine v. U.S. 

Dep’t of Justice, et al. (emphasis added).

In a civil case in which the United States is a party, a notice of appeal must be 

filed within 60 days of entry of final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(B). Because a timely notice of appeal in a civil case is both mandatory and 

jurisdictional, this court does not have the discretion to allow an untimely notice of 

appeal. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court entered final judgment on November 4, 2015 and denied a 

timely motion for reconsideration, which was construed as a timely Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 60(b) motion, on November 10, 2015. Appellants’ September 21, 2016 notice 

of appeal is beyond Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure’s 4(a)(1)(B)’s sixty-day time 

frame and also beyond Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6)’s time frame. See 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (providing that the district court may reopen the time to file an 

appeal only if the district court “finds that the moving party did not receive notice under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry of the judgment or order sought to be 

appealed within 21 days after entry” and if the motion to reopen “is filed within 180 days 

after the judgment or order is entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives 

notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d), whichever is earlier) (emphasis 

added). 

Appellants’ pro se status “does not excuse the obligation . . . to comply with the 

fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of . . . Appellate Procedure.” Ogden v. 

San Juan Cty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). 

Appellate Case: 16-1383 Document: 01019697542 Date Filed: 09/28/2016 Page: 2 
3

Because the notice of appeal is untimely, the court lacks jurisdiction over this 

appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-1383 Document: 01019697542 Date Filed: 09/28/2016 Page: 3