Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-07074/USCOURTS-ca10-16-07074-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Janet Dowling
Appellee
Timothy Alan Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

November 8, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

TIMOTHY ALAN WILSON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JANET DOWLING, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 16-7074

(D.C. No. 6:14-CV-00460-RAW-KEW)

(E.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, LUCERO, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This matter is before us on Appellant Timothy Alan Wilson’s response regarding 

this court’s appellate jurisdiction. Because the notice of appeal was untimely, the appeal 

must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. 

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The 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)(1)(A). Certain timely-filed postjudgment motions 

suspend the time to appeal until the district court rules on the motion. Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(4)(A). In addition, the district court—but not this court—is authorized to extend the 

appeal deadline based on a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 

Appellate Case: 16-7074 Document: 01019717929 Date Filed: 11/08/2016 Page: 1 
2

4(a)(5)(A). A motion requesting such an extension must be filed no later than 30 days 

after the period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a) expires. Id.

In this case, the district court entered judgment dismissing Mr. Wilson’s 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 habeas petition on August 1, 2016. Mr. Wilson filed his notice of appeal from the 

August 1 order on September 26, 2016.

On September 6, 2016, Mr. Wilson filed a motion for extension of time to reply to 

the dismissal order. He argues that this motion constituted a request for reconsideration, 

which suspended the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). To be timely, and 

suspend the time to appeal, the request for reconsideration had to be filed within 28 days 

after entry of judgment, or no later than August 29, 2016. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Mr. Wilson did not date his motion until August 31 and did not file it 

until September 6. Accordingly, Mr. Wilson’s motion for extension of time to reply to 

the dismissal order did not suspend the time to appeal.

Mr. Wilson also asserts that he can show good cause for his delay because the 

district court did not inform him of the time to appeal in its dismissal order and his 

facility was on lockdown from August 18 to September 5. However, Mr. Wilson has not 

requested an extension of the appeal deadline from the district court and his time to do so 

expired on September 30, 2016.

Appellate Case: 16-7074 Document: 01019717929 Date Filed: 11/08/2016 Page: 2 
3

Because Mr. Wilson’s notice of appeal was untimely, we lack jurisdiction to 

consider this appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-7074 Document: 01019717929 Date Filed: 11/08/2016 Page: 3