Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06033/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Debbie Adams
Appellee
Mel Almaguer
Appellee
Carl Bear
Appellee
Paula Beth
Appellee
Margaret Bradford
Appellee
John Doe
Appellee
Dale E. Harper
Appellant
Hernandez
Appellee
David Houck
Appellee
Justin Jones
Appellee
Mrs. McGill
Appellee
Debbie Morton
Appellee
James Rudek
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

DALE E. HARPER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES RUDEK, Warden; DEBBIE 

MORTON, Director's Designee; JUSTIN 

JONES, Director DOC; CARL BEAR, 

Warden's Assistant; MEL ALMAGUER, 

Unit Manager; DAVID HOUCK, Case 

Manager; HERNANDEZ, Guard OSR; 

MRS. McGILL, Yard Lt. OSR; PAULA 

BETH LNU, Law Librarian; DEBBIE 

ADAMS, Law Librarian; MARGARET 

BRADFORD, Executive Dir. OK 

Forensics Center; JOHN DOE, 2 unknown 

orderlies,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-6033

(D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00995-HE)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BACHARACH, PHILLIPS, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Dale Harper, proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint 

pursuant to a settlement agreement. This matter is before us now on Mr. Harper’s 

response to the clerk’s order directing him to show cause why the appeal should not be 

dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction due to the untimely filing of his notice of 

appeal.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

March 20, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-6033 Document: 01019402732 Date Filed: 03/20/2015 Page: 1 
2

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The notice of appeal in a civil case “must 

be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order 

appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Although courts construe a pro se litigant’s 

pleadings liberally, “an appellant’s pro se status does not excuse the obligation of any 

litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of [] Appellate 

Procedure.” Ogden v. San Juan Cnty., 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994).

On January 10, 2014, the district court entered an administrative closing order. 

The district court noted that the parties had reached a compromise and settlement and 

directed the court clerk to administratively terminate the action without prejudice to the 

filing of a stipulation of dismissal but provided that if closing papers were not filed 

within 30 days, the action would be deemed dismissed with prejudice. On February 11, 

2014, the district court extended the time to file closing papers until March 3, 2014. By 

its own terms, the administrative closing order matured into an appealable final judgment 

on March 3, 2014. Lewis v. B.F. Goodrich, CO., 850 F.2d 641, 642-43 (10th Cir. 1988) 

(noting that by its terms, the administrative closing order had matured into a dismissal 

with prejudice creating an appealable final judgment). On March 12, 2014, Mr. Harper 

filed a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a)(1)(A)(ii).

Whether the time to appeal started on March 3, 2014, when the administrative 

closing order matured into an appealable final judgment, or on March 12, 2014, when Mr. 

Harper filed a stipulation of dismissal, Mr. Harper’s notice of appeal, filed on March 2, 

2015 was untimely.

Appellate Case: 15-6033 Document: 01019402732 Date Filed: 03/20/2015 Page: 2 
3

The district court entered two orders after the stipulation of dismissal, denying Mr. 

Harper’s “objection” and striking Mr. Harper’s motion to set aside the judgment. Mr. 

Harper’s notice of appeal was not timely as to either of these orders either, which were 

entered on April 15, 2014 and October 2, 2014, respectively. 

In his response to the show cause order, Mr. Harper attributes the untimeliness to 

his difficulty in obtaining sufficient paper on which to write. Because the timely filing of 

a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdiction, we have no discretion to consider an 

untimely appeal, regardless of the reasons for the untimeliness.

APPEAL DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-6033 Document: 01019402732 Date Filed: 03/20/2015 Page: 3