Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03101/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03101-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

.. 

FILED 

United States Co11rt C?! Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth C•rcm, 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

GERIANNE MARIE BALL, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

OCT O 3 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-1301 

(D.C. No. 90-S-1270) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR and E.BEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a): 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

By our order of September 6, 1991, we directed plaintiff to 

show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. Plaintiff has responded, and the case is at issue. 

The district court dismissed plaintiff's action, filed 

pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983, by an order entered on that court's 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3101 Document: 010110090754 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 1 
docket on June 27, 1991. On July 17 plaintiff filed a motion 

styled "Motion for Rehearing Pursuant to Rule 40.1; 40.2 and 40.3 

in Response to Order Issued by the District Court of Colorado." 

The referenced rule is neither a Federal Rule of Civil or 

Appellate Procedure, nor the district court's local rule, but is a 

local rule of this court. Further, the rule governs petitions for 

rehearing only from judgments entered by this court. Contrary to 

plaintiff's suggestion in her response, our rule is not applicable 

to requests for rehearing made to the district court. 

A post-judgment motion will be considered a Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e) motion where it involves "'reconsideration of matters 

properly encompassed in a decision on the merits.'" Osterneck v. 

Ernst & Whinney 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989), quoting White v. New 

Hampshire, 455 U.S. 445, 451 (1982). See also Martinez v. 

Sullivan, 874 F.2d 751, 753 (10th Cir. 1989). Only issues wholly 

collateral to the judgment in the main 

outside the requirements of Rule 59(e). 

Stanships, Inc., 485 U.S. 265, 268-69 (1988). 

cause of action fall 

Buchanan v. 

Plaintiff's motion, seeking reconsideration of the merits of 

her claims, is clearly covered by Rule 59(e). Rule 59(e) motions 

must be made within the times prescribed by Rules 59(b) and 6(a). 

In other words, such a motion must be made within ten days of the 

entry of judgment, not counting Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. 

Only a timely Rule 59(e) motion will toll the running of the 

appeal period, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). Browder v. Director, Dep't 

of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264-65 (1978). 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-3101 Document: 010110090754 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 2 
Because the motion for rehearing was untimely, the appeal 

period expired on July 29. The notice of appeal filed August 19 

was therefore untimely. Consequently, this court is without 

jurisdiction over the appeal. 

Accordingly, the appeal is . dismissed. 

issue forthwith. 

The mandate shall 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-3101 Document: 010110090754 Date Filed: 06/06/1991 Page: 3