Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01039/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01039-0/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

_________________________________

DERIC B. VAN FLEET, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPUTY PALMER, El Paso Criminal 

Justice Center, Transportation; HEAD 

SUPERVISOR, El Paso Criminal Justice 

Center, Medical, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-1039

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-01694-LTB)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, GORSUCH and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

On July 25, 2014, the district court dismissed the complaint of Deric Van Fleet. A 

separate judgment was entered that same day. Any notice of appeal from that order and 

judgment was due within 30 days after the order and judgment were entered. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The notice of appeal, therefore, had to be filed no later than August 

25, 2014. In this instance, the notice of appeal was not filed until February 2, 2015, 

making it 161 days late. The notice of appeal is also late as to the district court’s 

September 22, 2014 denial of what it construed to be a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion filed 

by Mr. Van Fleet. Any notice of appeal from the order denying that motion was due on or 

before October 22, 2014. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 3, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1039 Document: 01019380448 Date Filed: 02/03/2015 Page: 1 
2

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 civil cases 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, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).

In light of the foregoing, this appeal is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction due 

to Mr. Van Fleet’s failure to timely file his notice of appeal.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Chris Wolpert

 Chief Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-1039 Document: 01019380448 Date Filed: 02/03/2015 Page: 2