Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-20-08019/USCOURTS-ca10-20-08019-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robin Cooper
Appellee
Melbern
Appellee
Brandon D. Roberts
Appellant
Catherine Rogers
Appellee
Jeremiah Sandburg
Appellee
Ben Sherman
Appellee
Joshua Taylor
Appellee
Noah Thomas
Appellee
David E. Westling
Appellee
Ryan Wright
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

BRANDON D. ROBERTS, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CATHERINE ROGERS, Laramie County 

District Court Judge, in her official and 

individual capacity; JOSHUA TAYLOR, 

Laramie County Assistant District 

Attorney, in his official and individual 

capacity; RYAN WRIGHT, Laramie 

County Assistant District Attorney, in his 

official and individual capacity; NOAH 

THOMAS, Laramie County Sheriff's 

Department Deputy, in his official and 

individual capacity; JEREMIAH 

SANDBURG, Former Laramie County 

District Attorney, in his official and 

individual capacity; BEN SHERMAN, 

Laramie County Assistant District 

Attorney, in his official and individual 

capacity; ROBIN COOPER, State of 

Wyoming Assistant Public Defender, in her 

official and individual capacity; DAVID E. 

WESTLING, State of Wyoming Senior 

Appellate Counsel, in his official and 

individual capacity; OFFICER 

MELBERN, Cheyenne Police Department 

Officer, in his official and individual 

capacity, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 20-8019

(D.C. No. 2:19-CV-00084-NDF)

(D. Wyo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 10, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 20-8019 Document: 010110331790 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 1
Before LUCERO, MATHESON, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Appellant Brandon D. Roberts, proceeding pro se, seeks appellate review of the 

District of Wyoming’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims and closure of his case. 

Upon consideration, the court dismiss the appeal as untimely filed for the reasons set 

forth below.

“This Court can exercise jurisdiction only if a notice of appeal is timely filed.” 

Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir. 2006). Mr. Roberts’

pro se status does not affect this rule, see Mayfield v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 647 F.2d 

1053, 1055 (10th Cir. 1981) (dismissing pro se appeal filed three days late), and this court 

has no authority to make equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements. See Bowles 

v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 216 (2007).

The district court entered its order closing the case underlying this appeal on 

September 10, 2019. [ECF No. 9]. The district court did not enter judgment by separate 

order. Accordingly, Mr. Roberts’ notice of his intent to appeal was due on or before 

March 9, 2020. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal in a civil case “must be 

filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed 

from”); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7) (judgment deemed entered when “150 days have run from 

entry of the . . . order in the civil docket”); Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C) (if last day of 

period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, period for filing “continues to run until the 

end of the next day that is not . . . .”). However, the district court did not receive Mr. 

Roberts’ notice of appeal until April 7, 2020. [ECF No. 10].

Appellate Case: 20-8019 Document: 010110331790 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 2
“[T]his court may not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.” Savage v. 

Cache Valley Dairy Ass’n, 737 F.2d 887, 889 (10th Cir. 1984). “Only the district court 

may do so and only under limited circumstances and for a limited time.” See Alva v. Teen 

Help, 469 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir. 2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2017(c); Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(5)). However, Mr. Roberts did not request an extension of time from the district 

court within which to file his notice of appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A), and his 

opportunity to do so has expired. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i) (requiring a party to 

move for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal “no later than 30 days after” he 

was otherwise required to file the notice). 

Mr. Roberts likewise did not ask the district court to reopen the time to appeal and, 

in the absence of a timely filed motion, the district court is without authority to reopen 

the filing period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (allowing the district court to reopen the 

time to file an appeal “only if all the [specified] conditions are satisfied,” including that 

the would-be appellant files a motion to reopen the time to file an appeal “within 14 days 

after the moving party receives notice . . . of the entry [of the judgment or order sought to 

be appealed”)].

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.2d 460, 464 (10th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, 

the court dismisses this appeal.

Appellate Case: 20-8019 Document: 010110331790 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 3
APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

by: Lisa A. Lee

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 20-8019 Document: 010110331790 Date Filed: 04/10/2020 Page: 4