Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03343/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03343-0/pdf.json

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

---

Fl LED 

Uflltt1d St te!i Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS "r<>r~r r ;~,..,:r 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

CARLS. MELTON, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT W. FISHER, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

~/ 

lv!A 12 1 91 

OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3343 

(D.C. No. 90-3488-R) 

(D. Kan.) 

Before McKAY, MOORE, and BALDOCK, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This case is before us on our own motion. Judgment was 

entered denying appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus, 

brought pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 2241, on November 16, 1990. On 

November 23, appellant filed his notice of appeal. However, on 

* 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: 90-3343 Document: 010110031079 Date Filed: 03/12/1991 Page: 1 
November 27, he timely filed and served a motion for 

reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

The filing of the Rule 59(e) motion thus nullified the notice 

of appeal. Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 

56, 61 (1982). Thereafter, on December 3, 1990, the district 

court denied the motion for reconsideration. No second notice of 

appeal was filed. 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) expressly 

provides that if a timely motion is made under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e), the time for appeal shall run from the entry of the order 

granting or denying such motion. After receiving a ruling on the 

motion, appellant was required to file a new notice of appeal in 

accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l). Skagerberg v. Oklahoma, 

797 F.2d 881, 883 (10th Cir. 1986). In addition, even though 

appellant in his post-judgment motion also invoked the provisions 

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (which, if proper, would not disturb the 

finality of the judgment), we have long held that regardless of 

how characterized, a post-judgment motion made within ten days of 

the entry of judgment questioning the correctness of the judgment 

is properly construed as a Rule 59(e) motion. Id. 

Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction, and the appeal is 

DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Circuit Judge 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-3343 Document: 010110031079 Date Filed: 03/12/1991 Page: 2