Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01059/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01059-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James C. Hogan
Appellant
Nancy Holton
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L L i.) United St.ates Court of Appeala Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT 

JAMES C. HOGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

NANCY HOLTON, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

FEB 2 4 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk . 

No. 92-1059 

(D. Colorado) 

(D.C. No. 91-C-1329) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, ANDERSON, 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Prose plaintiff James C. Hogan filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

action against Nancy Holton, an Assistant Public Defender with the 

Colorado Public Defender's Office who was appointed to represent 

Hogan in a criminal proceeding. Hogan's complaint contained three 

counts: count 1 alleged a "conspiracy with the Adams County 

Colorado District Attorney to gain criminal convictions of 

* 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 judi cata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3 . 

Appellate Case: 92-1059 Document: 010110176453 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 1 
plaintiffs;" count 2 alleged ineffective assistance of counsel; 

and count 3 alleged that Holton "forced plaintiff to waive his 

right to speedy trial." Civil Rights Complaint, R. Vol. I Tab 3. 

After referral to a magistrate judge, the district court 

dismissed with prejudice counts two and three for failure to state 

a claim, and dismissed without prejudice count one (the conspiracy 

c laim). The court then construed Hogan's Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 (b ) 

motion for "enlargement of filing" as a Fed . R. Civ. P. lS {a ) 

motion for leave to file an amended complaint, which the court 

granted, thereby giving Hogan twenty days in which to file an 

amended complaint as to the conspiracy claim. The court referred 

the matter back to the magistrate judge. 

After granting Hogan's motion for an extension of time in 

which to file an amended complaint, the magistrate judge 

thereafter recommended that the case be dismissed when Hogan 

failed to file his amended complaint within the time given. Three 

days later, however, Hogan filed another motion to amend together 

with his first amended complaint. The court denied as moot 

Hogan's motion to amend, and rejected the magistrate judge's 

recommendation that the complaint be dismissed . It then addressed 

whether Hogan's amended complaint stated a claim upon which relief 

could be granted. 

After concluding that counts two and three of the amended 

complaint were virtually identical to those same counts in Hogan's 

original complaint, which the court had previously dismissed with 

prejudice, the district court again dismissed them with prejudice. 

The court carefully reviewed Hogan's conspiracy complaint, and 

- 2-

Appellate Case: 92-1059 Document: 010110176453 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 2 
concluded that it failed to state a claim. "Even assuming all of 

that claim's factual allegations to be true, it appears beyond 

doubt that the plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to 

entitle him to the relief sought . " Order, R. Vol . 1 at Tab 21. 

It therefore dismissed Hogan's complaint. 

That order of dismissal was entered on January 7, 1992. 

Hogan's prose notice of appeal from that order was filed with the 

district court on March 3, 1992. Pursuant to Fed . R. App. P. 

4 (a ) (1 ) , the 30-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal expired 

on February 6, 1992. According to the certificate of service, the 

notice of appeal was mailed from the Clark County Detention Center 

in Las Vegas, Nevada, on February 26, 1992 . There is no indication on the notice of appeal or on any other document in this 

record that Hogan requested an extension of time. 

Compliance with filing requirements is '"mandatory and jurisdictional'" Browder v. Director. Dep't of Corrections, 434 U.S. 

257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S . 220, 

229 (1960)); Mayfield v. United States Parole Comm'n, 647 F.2d 

1053 , 1054-55 (10th Cir. 1981). Under Houston v . Lack, 487 U.S. 

266, 270, 276 (1988), a prose prisoner's notice of appeal is 

deemed filed when it is delivered to prison officials for 

forwarding to the district court . 

On its face, it would appear that Hogan's notice of appeal 

was not timely filed. Hogan argues, however, that the district 

court incorrectly mailed his copy of the January 6, 1992 , order to 

his forme r Colorado prison address, rather than to his new 

temporary Denver, Colorado address . Hogan asserts in his brief 

-3-

Appellate Case: 92-1059 Document: 010110176453 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 3 
that he "filed notice with the Clerk of the District Court 

providing a temporary mailing address of Appellant prepatory (sic ) 

to Appellant re-establishing his address in Las Vegas Nevada." 

Appellant's Opening Brief at 11. He also alleges that he left 

Denver on January 12, 1992, for Las Vegas, Nevada, and that he was 

arrested shortly after he arrived in Las Vegas on January 14, 

1992. 

The district court docket sheet as of February 18, 1992, 

shows a Denver, Colorado, address for Hogan, but the record before 

this court contains no written notice of change of address from 

Hogan, or a relevant district court docket entry indicating 

receipt of any such notice. The district court docket sheet does 

contain an entry dated January 14, 1992, stating "MAIL Returned 

(order of 1/6/92) addressed to plaintiff James C. Hogan [Entry 

date 01/15/92] ." 

Fed . R. App. P . 4(a) (6) provides that: 

[t]he district court, if it finds (a) that a party 

entitled to notice of the entry of a judgment or order 

did not receive such notice from the clerk or any party 

within 21 days of its entry and (b) that no party would 

be prejudiced, may, upon motion filed within 180 days of 

entry of the judgment or order or within 7 days of 

receipt of such notice, whichever is earlier, reopen the 

time for appeal for a period of 14 days from the date of 

entry of the order reopening the time for appeal. 

It is uncle ar from the record before us whether Hogan met the time 

limits of that rule. 

We conclude that the notice of appeal was not timely filed, 

and we the r e fore lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The 

notice is untimely on its face, and Hogan can point to n o thing in 

the record before this court to excuse that fact. Hogan bears the 

-4-

Appellate Case: 92-1059 Document: 010110176453 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 4 
burden of compliance with the rules. Thus, it was his responsibility, not the clerk's, to ensure that the proper address was 

clear for mailing purposes. More to the point, it was Hogan's 

responsibility to check with the clerk of the court to determine 

whether a decision had been filed. All litigants bear this 

responsibility, regardless of how inconvenient it may be. Here, 

Hogan was out of prison when the court's decision was entered, and 

living in Denver, convenient to the court. Thus, he was in no 

different position than any other litigant. 

But even if we were to assume jurisdiction in this case, we 

would affirm the district court's dismissal of Hogan's complaint. 

As the district court correctly noted, vague, unsupported and 

conclusory allegations are insufficient to state a claim of 

constitutional violation. See Hall v. Bellman, 935 F.2d 1106, 

1110 (10th Cir. 1991) (petitioner, even if prose, must allege 

sufficient facts about material events); Dunn v. White, 880 F.2d 

1188, 1198 (10th Cir. 1989) (specific allegations required to 

state a claim of constitutional violation), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 

1059 ( 1990) . 

For the foregoi ng reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack 

of jurisdiction. The manda t e sha ll issue forthwith. 

-5-

- - - -- - - -----

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-1059 Document: 010110176453 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 5 
Appellate Case: 92-1059 Document: 010110176453 Date Filed: 02/24/1993 Page: 6