Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02258/USCOURTS-ca10-89-02258-0/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

LEONARD LEWIS MONTOYA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

FILED 

United State$ (,o,J~c of Appeals 

Tenth Cir::u.it 

APR 3 0 1990 

ROBERT L HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. No. 89-2258 

(CIV 89-0561JC) 

(Distr. N.M.) 

NICHOLAS JARAMILLO 

Defendant-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, BRORBY, and EBEL, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

On May 12, 1989, plaintiff-appellant filed a civil rights 

complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant-appellee 

in the District of New Mexico. By Memorandum Opinion and Order 

entered on the docket May 30, 1989, the district court dismissed 

that complaint. On October 27, 1989, plaintiff-appellant filed a 

* 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: 89-2258 Document: 01019967213 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 1 
• 

"Request for Permission to File Notice of Appeal" in the district 

court. In that request, plaintiff-appellant alleged "excusable 

neglect" by virtue of a delay in his receipt of a copy of the 

dismissal order. According to plaintiff-appellant, the first time 

he was notified of the dismissal order was on October 23, 1989. 

It does not appear from the record that the district court ever 

ruled on or responded to plaintiff-appellant's request. 

Plaintiff-appellant's notice of appeal was untimely filed as 

it was not filed within thirty days of the entry of judgment as 

required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(l). Although 

plaintiff-appellant filed a request for an extension due to 

excusable neglect, "the request for such an extension must be made 

within thirty days after the expiration of the time fixed for 

filing an appeal." Wallace v. McManus, 776 F.2d 915, 916 (10th 

Cir. 1985). Therefore, the district court's failure to rule on 

plaintiff-appellant's request is harmless error because that court 

was without authority to grant the request. 

Plaintiff-appellant's notice of appeal was not timely filed. 

Thus, we are without jurisdiction and the appeal is DISMISSED. 1 

1 We note, however, that a district court may vacate and then 

reinstate a judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(l) in order to 

allow an appeal otherwise untimely under Rule 4(a) if the movant 

demonstrates excusable neglect resulting from a delay in the 

receipt of notice of the judgment until after the thirty-day 

period for filing a notice of appeal or a request for an extension 

of time has expired. See Wallace v. McManus, 776 F.2d 915, 917 

(10th Cir. 1985). In noting this possible avenue to appellate 

review, we express no opinion as to the merits of plaintiffappellant's underlying claim nor of his ability to demonstrate 

excusable neglect for relief under Rule 60(b)(l). 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-2258 Document: 01019967213 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 2 
• 

.. The mandate shall issue forthwith . 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-2258 Document: 01019967213 Date Filed: 04/30/1990 Page: 3