Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-10-01008/USCOURTS-ca10-10-01008-0/pdf.json

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

---

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 19, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD MARTINEZ,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS; WARDEN OF THE

STERLING CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1008

(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-01549-ZLW)

(D. Colorado)

ORDER

Before HARTZ, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

In a September 9, 2009 Order and separate judgment, district court dismissed Plaintiff

Martinez’s civil rights action. And, in an October 1, 2009 Order, the court denied his timely

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, appeals. We dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction. The notice of appeal is untimely.

In Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007), the Supreme Court made “clear that

the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” In this

Appellate Case: 10-1008 Document: 01018370087 Date Filed: 02/19/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

case, the deadline for filing a timely notice of appeal expired on November 2, 2009, which

was thirty days after entry of the October 1, 2009 Order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A).

Plaintiff’s notice of appeal was filed in the district court on January 12, 2010, which

was seventy-one days past the thirty-day filing deadline. Although Plaintiff is entitled to

application of the prisoner mailbox rule, he cannot avail himself of this rule because he failed

to comply with the rule’s mandatory requirements. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Prince v.

Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1165-67 (10th Cir. 2005). Moreover, the “certificate of service” in

the notice of appeal contains a date of January 10, 2010, which is well-beyond the filing

deadline. Pro se appellants must comply with the requirements of the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure that govern all litigants. See Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452,

455 (10th Cir. 1994).

The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

Entered for the Court,

Elisabeth A. Shumaker, Clerk

Kathleen T. Clifford

Attorney - Deputy Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1008 Document: 01018370087 Date Filed: 02/19/2010 Page: 2