Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02189/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02189-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

OCT 2 l 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

JONATHAN PETER ROMERO, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

JOHN O'BRIEN, individually; STACEY ) 

O'BRIEN, individually; JOSEPH CALDWELL, ) 

District Judge, in his individual and ) 

official capacities; THE NEW MEXICO ) 

STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; ) 

SAMUEL PACHECO, District Attorney, in ) 

his individual and official capacities; ) 

FRANK PADILLA, Asst. Dist. Attorney, in) 

his official and individual capacities; ) 

BRIGITTE LOTZE, individually; MARY ) 

ALEXANDER, in her individual and ) 

official capacities; MICHAEL KNIGHT, in) 

his official and individual capacities; ) 

ELIZABETH DINSMORE, in her official and) 

individual capacities; ANGELA ADAMS, .in) 

her official and individual capacities; ) 

TIMOTHY CORNISH, in his official and ) 

individual capacities; JAMES LUCERO, in) 

his official and individual capacities; ) 

JUAN VIGIL, former D.H.S. Secretary; ) 

LOU GALLEGOS, former D.H.S. Secretary; ) 

AL VALDEZ, D.H.S. Secretary; JENNIE ) 

GILMER, Former Director of Social ) 

Services, D.H.S.; JACK CALLAGHAN, ) 

Director Social Services, D.H.S., ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

* 

Nos. 90-2189 

& 

90-2222 

(D.C. No. 89-363-JP) 

(D. N.M.) 

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: 90-2189 Document: 010110091396 Date Filed: 10/21/1991 Page: 1 
Before McKAY, Chief Judge, EBEL, Circuit Judge, and SAFFELS,** 

District Judge. 

**Honorable Dale E. Saffels, Senior District Judge, United States 

District Court for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cases are therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant appeals the district court's dismissal of 

his claims for monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief 

arising from defendants-appellees' alleged violation of his civil 

rights in connection with certain state court proceedings. Before 

considering the merits of plaintiff's appeals, we must examine our 

jurisdiction. See McGeorge v. Continental Airlines, Inc., 871 

F.2d 952, 953 (10th Cir. 1989)(court has duty to inquire into its 

own jurisdiction even when parties do not question it). "A court 

of appeals acquires jurisdiction of an appeal only upon the filing 

of a timely notice of appeal and this requirement is mandatory and 

jurisdictional." Gooch v. Skelly Oil Co., 493 F.2d 366, 368 (10th 

Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 997 (1974). Because neither of 

plaintiff's appeals was timely filed, we must dismiss them for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

The district court entered a final judgment in the underlying 

action on August 3, 1990, when it dismissed plaintiff's amended 

complaint and all other claims asserted in the action. On 

August 17, 1990, plaintiff filed a timely motion pursuant to 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-2189 Document: 010110091396 Date Filed: 10/21/1991 Page: 2 
, 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 challenging the court's order of 

August 3, 1990. While that motion was pending, plaintiff filed 

his notice of appeal in Appeal No. 90-2189. Plaintiff recited in 

the body of the notice that "Rule 4(a)(4) Fed. Rules App. Proc. 

appears to be controlling and that in such case the Notice may be 

premature." 

Plaintiff was correct. Rule 4(a)(4) provides that "[a] 

notice of appeal filed before the disposition of any [Rule 59] 

motion[] shall have no effect. A new notice of appeal must be 

filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the 

order disposing of the motion as provided above," which is thirty 

days in a case in which the United States is not a party. 

Therefore, the notice of appeal plaintiff filed on 

August 30, 1990, while his Rule 59 . motion was still pending, was 

void and had no effect. See Colorado Bldg. & Constr. Trades 

Council v. B.B. Andersen Constr. Co., 879 F.2d 809, 810 n.1 (10th 

Cir. 1989). To perfect a timely appeal, plaintiff had to file a 

new notice of appeal within thirty days after the court ruled on 

his Rule 59 motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l) and (4). 

The district court denied plaintiff's Rule 59 motion on 

September 4, 1990. Plaintiff, however, did not file another 

notice of appeal until October 9, 1990, thirty-five days later. 

Because plaintiff did not file his second notice of appeal 

(docketed as Appeal No. 90-2222) within thirty days of the 

disposition of his Rule 59 motion, his second appeal also was 

untimely. If a notice of appeal is untimely, the appellate court 

is without discretion to review the merits and must dismiss the 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-2189 Document: 010110091396 Date Filed: 10/21/1991 Page: 3 
appeal. Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196, 203 

(1988). 

Accordingly, Appeal Nos. 90-2189 and 90-2222 are DISMISSED 

for lack of jurisdiction. Defendants' motion to strike the notice 

of appeal in No. 90-2189 for failure to comply with 

Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) is DENIED as moot. 

The mandates shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Monroe G. McKay 

Chief Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-2189 Document: 010110091396 Date Filed: 10/21/1991 Page: 4