Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-10-01122/USCOURTS-ca10-10-01122-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 23, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

DOUGLAS LEE CRAWFORD,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

THE ADAMS COUNTY COMBINED

COURT JUSTICE CENTER,

 Respondent - Appellee. 

No. 10-1122

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-3025-ZLW)

ORDER

Before MURPHY, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

The district court dismissed the state habeas application of Douglas Lee Crawford

on February 12, 2010 and entered a separate judgment that same day. Any notice of

appeal from that order and judgment was due within 30 days thereof. Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1)(A). The notice of appeal therefore had to be filed no later than March 15, 2010,

by operation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3) and Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3). In this instance, the

notice of appeal was not filed until March 25, 2010. By Mr. Crawford’s own admission

in his certificate of service, he did not even place the notice of appeal into the prison mail

system until March 23, 2010.

Appellate Case: 10-1122 Document: 01018408651 Date Filed: 04/23/2010 Page: 1 
2

Mr. Crawford was given the opportunity to show cause why his attempted appeal

should not be dismissed as untimely. He responded with a “Response to Court Order of

March 30, 2010 ” and a “Memorandum.”

Mr. Crawford does not contest the operative facts set out above. He principally

argues his tardiness in filing should be excused because he was given erroneous advice as

to the filing deadline by inmates at the prison library. He asserts three different inmates

told him that the deadline for the notice of appeal was 45 days, rather than 30. He also

cites to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), which sets out the conditions under which a district court

may reopen the time within which a notice of appeal can be filed. 

As to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6), Mr. Crawford does not allege the requisite criteria

for reopening the time period for an appeal stated in that rule and in any event, no motion

seeking that relief was ever filed in the district court. 

 With regard to the erroneous advice he was provided by other inmates, although

this court construes a pro se litigant’s pleadings liberally, “an appellant’s pro se status

does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental

requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan

County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). Further, the United States Supreme Court has

held that in proceedings such as this, the failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives

the circuit court of appellate jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed. Bowles v.

Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360 (2007). 

Appellate Case: 10-1122 Document: 01018408651 Date Filed: 04/23/2010 Page: 2 
3

For the foregoing reasons, this appeal must be and accordingly is dismissed.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER

Clerk of Court

by:

Douglas E. Cressler

Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1122 Document: 01018408651 Date Filed: 04/23/2010 Page: 3