Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03001/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03001-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

' . ' I 

• • UNITED STATES COURT OF 

1

1 ILED 

Uoi ed States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT JUN 13 1991 

----------ROBERTL.HOECKER 

JOHN WEBSTER FLANAGAN, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

WARDEN, U.S. PENITENTIARY, 

LEAVENWORTH, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

No. 91-3001 

(D.C. No.88-3456-O) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

John Webster Flanagan, a prose federal prisoner, filed a 

petition for a writ of habeas corpus arising out of prison 

disciplinary proceedings. The district court dismissed the 

action, ruling that one claim was moot and that jurisdiction was 

*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: 91-3001 Document: 010110119444 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 1 
, 

l 

' ' lacking over the remaining claims. Flanagan appeals. We dismiss 

for lack of jurisdiction. 

The district court's judgment of dismissal was entered on the 

docket December 5, 1990. Flanagan filed a notice of appeal on 

December 20. However, the record reveals that Flanagan had filed 

a motion styled Motion to Amend Judgment Rule 59 F.R.C.P. on 

December 19, 1990, within ten days of the entry of the district 

court's order of dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). That 

motion has not been ruled on by the district court. 

This court has held that, "regardless of how it is 

characterized, a post-judgment motion made within ten days of the 

entry of judgment that questions the correctness of a judgment is 

properly construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)." Skagerberg v. Oklahoma, 797 F.2d 881, 883 

(10th Cir. 1986). "[A] timely Rule 59(e) motion tolls the time 

for filing a notice of appeal from a district court judgment .... A notice of appeal filed while a timely Rule 59(e) 

motion is pending is ineffective to confer jurisdiction on a court 

of appeals." Id. (citation omitted). 

The Rule 59(e) motion in this case was timely. The notice of 

appeal was filed while that motion was pending and the district 

court has not yet ruled on it. 1 Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction 

1 A premature notice of appeal may ripen and save the action if 

the "district court has adjudicated all remaining outstanding 

claims before this appellate court acts to dismiss the appeal." 

Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich Co., 850 F.2d 641, 645 (10th Cir. 1988) (en 

bane). However, the district court has not done so in this case 

and the holding in Lewis is therefore inapplicable. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3001 Document: 010110119444 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 2 
JI 

I 

"\ 

' I I 

over this appeal. 

DISMISSED. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3001 Document: 010110119444 Date Filed: 06/13/1991 Page: 3