Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01784/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01784-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William T. Conklin
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

f 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

u·FILED 

nit.eel 8,tat:es Court of AppeaJs ~ enth Circuit 

MAR ·O 71989 

WILLIAM T. CONKLIN, } 

} ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Plaintiff-Appellant, } Clerk 

} 

v. } No. 88-1784 

} ( D. C. No. 87-C-1415} 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, } (D. Colo.} 

} 

Defendant-Appellee. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.** 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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 action underlying this 

The cause is therefore ordered 

appeal was dismissed on 

December 30, 1987. Although plaintiff filed a request for 

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

Appellate Case: 88-1784 Document: 010110024519 Date Filed: 03/07/1989 Page: 1 
I 

reconsideration, that motion did not toll the running of the 

appeal period because the motion, filed January 22, 1988, was not 

served within the time provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. 

Consequently, the appeal period as to the dismissal of the action 

was not tolled, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4), and expired February 29, 

1988. See Cox v. Flood, 683 F.2d 330 (10th Cir. 1982); White v. 

New Hampshire, 455 U.S. 445 (1982). 

Plaintiff's second motion for reconsideration did not toll 

the appeal period either, because Rule 59(e) motions cannot be 

stacked. See Venable v. Haislip, 721 F.2d 297, 299 (10th Cir. 

1983). 

Finally, as to the district court's determination to award 

attorney's fees and costs, the appeal is premature. At the time 

the appeal was taken, and indeed to this date, no amount has been 

set for fees or costs. 

Topeka, 807 F.2d 

In Phelps v. Washburn University of 

153 (10th Cir. 1986), we held that a 

determination to award attorney's fees was not final until the 

amount had been determined. 

For the above reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1784 Document: 010110024519 Date Filed: 03/07/1989 Page: 2