Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02078/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02078-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Albuquerque Police Department
Appellee
American Bar Association
Appellee
City of Albuquerque
Appellee
County of Bernalillo
Appellee
Court of Appeals
Appellee
Department of Labor
Appellee
FNU Doe
Appellee
Jamie Flores
Appellee
Law Offices of the Public Defender
Appellee
Kenneth H. Martinez
Appellee
Metropolitan Detention Center
Appellee
Khalid Mohammad
Appellant
New Mexico Supreme Court
Appellee
Occupational Health and Safety Review Commission
Appellee
Occupational Safety & Health Administration
Appellee
Stephen P. Ochoa
Appellee
Office of the District Attorney
Appellee
Public Defender Department
Appellee
Second Judicial District Court
Appellee
State Bar of New Mexico
Appellee
State of New Mexico
Appellee
Supreme Court of the United States
Appellee
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Appellee
United States Department of Justice
Appellee
United States of America
Appellee
Jason Yamato
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

KHALID MOHAMMAD, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

JUSTICE; SUPREME COURT OF THE 

UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES 

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH 

CIRCUIT; DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION; AMERICAN BAR 

ASSOCIATION; STATE OF NEW 

MEXICO; NEW MEXICO SUPREME 

COURT; STATE BAR OF NEW 

MEXICO; OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT 

ATTORNEY; PUBLIC DEFENDER 

DEPARTMENT; LAW OFFICES OF THE 

PUBLIC DEFENDER; OCCUPATIONAL 

HEALTH AND SAFETY REVIEW 

COMMISSION; COUNTY OF 

BERNALILLO; CITY OF 

ALBUQUERQUE; METROPOLITAN 

DETENTION CENTER; 

ALBUQUERQUE POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; COURT OF APPEALS; 

SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT; 

FNU DOE, AG-USA; FNU DOE, AGUSDOJ; FNU DOE, DOL-US; FNU DOE; 

FNU DOE, OSHA-US; FNU DOE, ABAUS; FNU DOE, SCUS; FNU DOE, USCA10; FNU DOE, AG-NM; FNU DOE, 

ODA-NM; STEPHEN P. OCHOA; JASON 

YAMATO; FNU DOE, OHSRC-NM; FNU 

DOE, SB-NM; FNU DOE, MGR-COB; 

FNU DOE, MYR-COA; FNU DOE, PDDNo. 16-2078

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-00409-WJ-KBM)

(D. N.M.)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 5, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2078 Document: 01019615402 Date Filed: 05/05/2016 Page: 1 
2

NM; FNU DOE, PDD-ABQ; FNU DOE, 

MDC; FNU DOE, PDD-NM; FNU DOE, 

NMSC; FNU DOE, CA; FNU DOE, SJDC; 

FNU DOE, Judge; KENNETH H. 

MARTINEZ; JAMIE FLORES; FNU 

DOE, Counsel; FNU DOE, APD-NM; 

FNU DOE, Officer, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Pro se plaintiff Khalid Mohammad appeals the district court’s order and separate 

judgment dismissing his civil rights case. The notice of appeal was filed long after the 

filing deadline passed, however. Consequently, we conclude that this court lacks 

jurisdiction to consider the appeal.

“A timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional.” Allender v. 

Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). In a 

civil case in which the United States or its agent is a party, a notice of appeal “must be 

filed with the district clerk within 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from is 

entered.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Although Mr. Mohammad is proceeding pro se, he 

must comply with the time requirements in the procedural rules. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 

1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007).

In this case, final judgment was entered October 24, 2014. To be timely, the notice 

of appeal should have been filed by December 23, 2014. The notice of appeal was not 

Appellate Case: 16-2078 Document: 01019615402 Date Filed: 05/05/2016 Page: 2 
3

filed until April 28, 2016, which is more than a year and four months after the filing 

deadline expired. No exception to the late appeal is available to Mr. Mohammad: he did 

not seek relief, nor could he obtain it now, from the district court. See id. 4(a)(5), (a)(6). 

Further, the United States Supreme Court has made clear that federal courts “ha[ve] no 

authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements.” Bowles v. Russell, 

551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Therefore, “[t]he time limit has run and we are without 

jurisdiction under the facts of this case.” Jenkins v. Burtzloff, 69 F.2d 460, 464 (10th Cir. 

1995).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-2078 Document: 01019615402 Date Filed: 05/05/2016 Page: 3