Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-24-01462/USCOURTS-ca10-24-01462-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

GREGORY CARL WIND, JR., 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NATHAN MCDONALD; MICHAEL J. 

MCKINNEY; ADAMS COUNTY, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 24-1462

(D.C. No. 1:23-CV-01011-PAB-RTG)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This appeal is before us sua sponte to consider the court’s jurisdiction over this 

appeal. See Hill v. Vanderbilt Cap. Advisors, LLC, 702 F.3d 1220, 1223 (10th Cir. 2012) 

(this court has “an independent duty to examine [its] own jurisdiction”). 

The district court entered judgment against pro se appellant Gregory C. Wind, Jr. 

on September 25, 2024. In this civil case that does not include a federal actor as a party, 

the time to appeal that judgment was 30 days. Accordingly, Mr. Wind needed to file his 

notice of appeal by October 25, 2024. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a). The notice of appeal in this 

matter was not filed until November 25, 2024, after the deadline had expired. We note 

that under the prison mailbox rule, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(c), Mr. Wind’s notice of appeal 

could perhaps be considered filed as early as November 19, 2024. However, even 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 6, 2025

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 24-1462 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/06/2025 Page: 1
2

assuming we should consider Mr. Wind’s notice of appeal filed on November 19, 2024, it 

would not change the conclusion that Mr. Wind did not file his notice of appeal within 

the jurisdictional time limit to do so.

We entered a show cause order that required Mr. Wind to explain why appellate 

jurisdiction was present in this appeal. We have before us Mr. Wind’s response to that 

show cause order. Upon consideration of Mr. Wind’s response, the district court docket, 

and the applicable law, we conclude we lack jurisdiction for the reasons articulated 

below.

“A timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” Allender v. 

Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). In a 

civil case like this one, a notice of appeal “must be filed with the district clerk within 30 

days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); see 

also 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). Although Mr. Wind does not have an attorney, he must comply 

with the timeliness requirements in the procedural rules the same as any other litigant. 

Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). In his response to the show 

cause order, Mr. Wind contends that he never received the district court judgment he 

seeks to appeal. However, even assuming that is true, this court does not have the 

authority to extend the time for Mr. Wind to file his notice of appeal. See Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (no authority to create equitable exceptions to 

jurisdictional time limit applicable to notice of appeal in a civil case); see also Alva v. 

Appellate Case: 24-1462 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/06/2025 Page: 2
3

Teen Help, 469 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir. 2006) (only the district court can extend the time 

to file a notice of appeal, and only under limited circumstances).

Here, the district court’s final judgment was entered September 25, 2024. To be 

timely, the notice of appeal had to be filed in the district court by October 25, 2024. Mr. 

Wind did not file his notice of appeal until—at the earliest—November 19, 2024, after 

the deadline to appeal the judgment passed. This court has no authority to ignore the 

jurisdictional requirement to file a timely notice of appeal. Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214. So, 

“[t]he time limit has run[,] and we are without jurisdiction under the facts of this case.” 

Jenkins v. Burtzloff, 69 F.3d 460, 464 (10th Cir. 1995).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 24-1462 Document: 13 Date Filed: 01/06/2025 Page: 3