Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03348/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03348-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Maurice B. Moore
Appellant
United States Bureau of Prisons
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

-- ..... -

AUG 2 ~-1992 

Off7 RT L. HO .c=~=?. 

MAURICE B. MOORE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Clerk 

v. 

UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Nos. 91-3348 & 92-3006 

(D. C. No. 89-3121-R) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Moore appeals the decision holding his prose negligence 

suit was barred by the statute of limitations. We dismiss for 

lack of jurisdiction. 

* be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 91-3348 Document: 010110307899 Date Filed: 08/27/1992 Page: 1
The essential facts are not in dispute. Mr. Moore is a 

prison inmate and he alleges a prison employee negligently threw 

away his personal property on April 13, 1988. Mr. Moore submitted 

an administrative claim which was denied September 26, 1988. 

Notice of this denial was mailed to Mr. Moore no later than 

September 30, 1988. Mr. Moore commenced this prose suit, based 

upon the Federal Tort Claims Act, on April 7, 1989. 

28 u.s.c. § 2401(b) provides that a tort claim against the 

United States is forever barred unless "action is begun within six 

months after the date of mailing of ... notice of final denial of 

the claim by the agency to which it was presented." The district 

court applied this statute and held Mr. Moore commenced this suit 

seven days too late and dismissed the action for lack of 

jurisdiction. 

Mr. Moore filed a Motion for Reconsideration alleging and 

attaching affidavits evidencing the complaint and check for 

payment of fees had been delivered to prison officials for mailing 

some nine days prior to March 30, the filing deadline. Mr. Moore 

urged the district court to apply the principles of Houston v. 

Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), where the Supreme Court held that under 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l) prose prisoners' notices of appeal are 

deemed filed at the moment of delivery to prison authorities for 

forwarding to the district court. Id. at 276. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3348 Document: 010110307899 Date Filed: 08/27/1992 Page: 2
Jurisdiction 

Appellee contends we are without jurisdiction to hear this 

appeal as Mr. Moore prematurely filed a notice of appeal. 

The record on appeal reveals the following chronology: 

25 October 1991 

1 November 1991 

5 November 1991 

8 November 1991 

8 November 1991 

13 November 1991 

30 December 1991 

District Court entered final order 

holding the suit was time barred. 

Mr. Moore filed motion asking for a 

pretrial. 

District court denied pretrial. 

Mr. Moore filed Motion for 

Reconsideration of 25 October Order. 

Mr. Moore filed Notice of Appeal of 25 

October Order (Appeal No. 91-3348). 

District court denied Motion for 

Reconsideration of Order of 25 October. 

Mr. Moore filed his second notice of 

appeal concerning the district court's 

Orders of 25 October and 5 November. 

The record on appeal reveals what has become a commonplace 

occurrence in pro se litigation. Approximately three dozen 

motions were filed by the parties, and this practice did not cease 

even after Mr. Moore had filed not one, but two, notices of 

appeal. 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4) is clear in its requirements. If any 

party files a motion seeking either additional findings of fact or 

the alteration of a judgment, any previous notice of appeal is a 

nullity. The time for appeal begins when the motion is decided 

-3-

Appellate Case: 91-3348 Document: 010110307899 Date Filed: 08/27/1992 Page: 3
and a new notice of appeal must be filed. Such is the case now 

before us. By filing his Motion for Reconsideration, Mr. Moore 

asked the district court to make additional findings of fact (his 

complaint, etc., were delivered to prison officials for filing in 

time) and to alter the judgment (decide in favor of Mr. Moore). 

Under this rule, Mr. Moore's first notice of appeal was nullified 

as it was filed prior to the district court's decision on the 

Motion to Reconsider. Mr. Moore's second notice of appeal filed 

30 December 1991 was untimely as Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l) allows 

only thirty days after the date of the order appealed from within 

which to file a valid notice of appeal. As there exists no valid 

and timely notice of appeal, we have no jurisdiction to decide 

this case. 

The appeals are DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 91-3348 Document: 010110307899 Date Filed: 08/27/1992 Page: 4