Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01386/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01386-0/pdf.json

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

---

,I UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED 

Uaitcd States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT Tenth r.in:nit 

o. GEORGE SPECHT, JR. and JUNE B. 

SPECHT, 

v. 

Plaintiffs-AppelleesCross-Appellants, 

ROGER JENSEN; DOUG MARTIN; 

DON OWENS, 

Defendants-AppellantsCross-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

JAN 111990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) No. 89-1386 

) : ( D. C. No. 82-Z-809) 

) (D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, MOORE, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

* 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: 89-1386 Document: 01019959084 Date Filed: 01/11/1990 Page: 1 
This is a purported cross appeal taken by plaintiffs "with 

regard to the Notice of Appeal filed by Defendants-Appellants [in 

case No. 89-1374] on grounds pursuant to F.R.A.P. 38, 

F.R.C.P. 11, and 28 u.s.c. SS 1912 and 1927." 

Plaintiffs' notice of appeal does not designate the judgment 

or order from which the appeal is taken. In relevant part, 

Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) states "[t]he notice of appeal shall specify 

the party or parties taking the appeai; shall designate the 

judgment or order or part thereof appealed from; and shall name 

the court from which the appeal is taken (emphasis supplied)." 

Generally, a mistake in designating the judgment or order 

appealed from is not invariably fatal, so long as the intent to 

appeal from the specific judgment can be fairly inferred. 

However, in this case, it is abundantly clear that plaintiffs did 

not intend, by their notice of appeal, to challenge any order or 

judgment of the district court. Rather, they attempt to use it as 

a device by which to seek sanctions against defendantscross-appellees for taking an appeal. This is a conspicuous 

misuse of the appellate process. Plaintiffs' notice of appeal, 

which does not seek review of any action of the district court, is 

a virtual nullity. Consequently, the purported 

DISMISSED for lack of appellate jurisdiction. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

appeal is 

Appellate Case: 89-1386 Document: 01019959084 Date Filed: 01/11/1990 Page: 2