Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01405/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01405-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Don Bird
Appellee
Cynthia Coffman
Appellee
Jan B. Hamilton
Appellant
D. Muldoon
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

JAN B. HAMILTON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DON BIRD, Pitkin County Jail, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

_________________________________

No. 15-1404

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01791-GPG)

(D. Colo.)

JAN B. HAMILTON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

D. MULDOON, Capt. Park County; DON 

BIRD, Pitkin County; CYNTHIA 

COFFMAN, The Attorney General of the 

State of Colorado, 

 Respondents - Appellees.

_________________________________

No. 15-1405

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01792-GPG)

(D. Colo.)

JAN BARTON HAMILTON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DON BIRD, Pitkin County Jail; D. 

MULDOON, Captain, Fairplay, CO; THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF COLORADO, 

 Respondents - Appellees.

_________________________________

No. 15-1407

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01882-GPG)

(D. Colo.)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 3, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1405 Document: 01019517886 Date Filed: 11/03/2015 Page: 1 
2

JAN B. HAMILTON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DON BIRD, Pitkin Co. Jail; D. 

MOULDOON, Capt. Park County Jail; 

CYNTHIA COFFMAN, Attorney General 

for the State of Colorado, 

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 15-1408

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-01879-GPG)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, GORSUCH, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

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

these four appeals. The Appellant, Jan B. Hamilton, sent a letter to this court expressing 

her desire to appeal her six district court cases: one civil rights case and five habeas 

proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. We treated her letter as a misdirected notice of 

appeal and sent it to the district court for filing in each of her six district court cases, 

resulting in six separate appeals in this court. By separate order, we dismiss Ms. 

Hamilton’s appeal in the civil rights case for lack of jurisdiction. See Hamilton v. Boyd, 

No. 15-1401 (10th Cir. Nov. 3, 2015). As for the five habeas appeals, appeal No. 15-

1400 is proceeding. As set forth below, we conclude we lack jurisdiction to consider the 

other four.

Appellate Case: 15-1405 Document: 01019517886 Date Filed: 11/03/2015 Page: 2 
3

Generally, this court’s appellate jurisdiction is limited to review of final decisions. 

28 U.S.C. § 1291. A final decision is one that “ends the litigation on the merits and 

leaves nothing for the court to do but execute judgment.” Cunningham v. Hamilton Cnty., 

Ohio, 527 U.S. 198, 204 (1999) (internal quotations omitted).

In these four appeals, Ms. Hamilton filed her notice of appeal after the magistrate 

judge below directed Ms. Hamilton to cure deficiencies in her § 2254 applications, but 

before the district court had ruled on her amended § 2254 applications. Because the 

district court had not yet entered a final decision in any of these four cases at the time Ms. 

Hamilton filed her misdirected notice of appeal, we lack jurisdiction to consider these 

four appeals. Our dismissal of these appeals now does not preclude Ms. Hamilton from 

filing a new notice of appeal in the district court once the district court has entered its 

final decision in the underlying cases. In this regard, we note that the district court 

entered judgment in D. Colo. No. 15-CV-1791 on October 28, 2015. Ms. Hamilton will 

need to file a new and timely notice of appeal in order to appeal the district court’s 

judgment in that case.

APPEALS DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-1405 Document: 01019517886 Date Filed: 11/03/2015 Page: 3