Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02066/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02066-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

KHALID MOHAMMAD, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO; COUNTY 

OF BERNALILLO; CITY OF 

ALBUQUERQUE; ALBUQUERQUE 

POLICE DEPARTMENT; 

METROPOLITAN DETENTION 

CENTER; FIRST UNITED METHODIST 

CHURCH; ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.; 

GARY K. KING; TOM ZDUNECK; 

RICHARD J. BERRY; GORDEN EDEN; 

RAMON RUSTIN; DEVONNA 

ROBERTS, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-2066

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00307-JCH-KBM)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

We raise sua sponte the question of whether this court has jurisdiction to consider 

this appeal. 

In a civil case in which the United States is a party, a notice of appeal must be 

filed within 60 days of entry of the order being appealed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). This court does not have the discretion to allow an untimely notice 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 16, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2066 Document: 01019620833 Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 1 
2

of appeal; a timely notice of appeal in a civil case is both mandatory and jurisdictional. 

See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). 

The district court entered final judgment on October 2, 2015. Appellant’s April 20, 

2016 notice of appeal is well beyond Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure’s 4(a)(1)(B)’s 

sixty-day time frame. “Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B) unambiguously 

states that the sixty-day time frame is measured from the date of entry of the judgment,”

not the date of receipt. Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 438 

F. App’x 669, 673 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (emphasis in original). Appellant’s pro 

se status “does not excuse the obligation . . . to comply with the fundamental 

requirements of the Federal Rules of . . . Appellate Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan Cty., 

32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994). Additionally, Appellant did not seek relief from the 

district court, nor could he obtain it now. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (a)(6). 

Because the notice of appeal is untimely, the court lacks jurisdiction over this 

appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lindy Lucero Schaible

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-2066 Document: 01019620833 Date Filed: 05/16/2016 Page: 2