Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-20-01145/USCOURTS-ca10-20-01145-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Baker Hughes
Appellee
Louis Michael Zamora
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

LOUIS MICHAEL ZAMORA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BAKER HUGHES, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 20-1145

(D.C. No. 1:18-CV-00864-RBJ-STV)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Pro se plaintiff Louis Michael Zamora appeals the district court’s order granting 

the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and separate judgment dismissing the 

underlying case. The notice of appeal was filed after the deadline to file a notice of 

appeal expired. This court challenged whether we have jurisdiction to consider the 

appeal, directing the appellant to file a response. Upon consideration of the appellant’s 

response, the district court record, and the applicable law, we conclude that this court 

lacks jurisdiction to consider Mr. Zamora’s appeal.

“This court can exercise jurisdiction only if a notice of appeal is timely filed. 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). A notice of 

appeal in a civil case like this one must be filed within 30 days after the district court’s 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 15, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 20-1145 Document: 010110348461 Date Filed: 05/15/2020 Page: 1
2

judgment is entered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Although the appellant is proceeding pro 

se, he must comply with the same procedural requirements that govern all litigants. Kay 

v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007); Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 

455 (10th Cir. 1994).

In this case, the district court’s judgment was entered on March 3, 2020. To be 

timely, the notice of appeal should have been filed by April 2, 2020. The notice of appeal 

was filed on April 13, 2020, 11 days after the filing deadline expired.

The appellant’s Memorandum Brief filed in response to this court’s order to show 

cause did not demonstrate that he timely filed the notice of appeal. The appellant’s only 

potential avenue for relief from the untimely filing was in the district court. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2107(c); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). The appellant did not seek or obtain relief from the 

district court, however, and the time within which he could have done so has expired. As 

a result, “[t]he time limit has run and we are without jurisdiction under the facts of this 

case.” Jenkins v. Burtzloff, 69 F.3d 460, 464 (10th Cir. 1995).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 20-1145 Document: 010110348461 Date Filed: 05/15/2020 Page: 2