Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01257/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01257-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mary Compton
Appellee
John/Jane Doe
Appellee
Frank Miller
Appellee
Karl Heinz Singleton
Appellant

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

KARL HEINZ SINGLETON, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARY COMPTON, CDOC Time 

Computation; JOHN/JANE DOE, CDOC 

Accounting and Dispersal; JOHN/JANE 

DOE, CDOC Administration; FRANK 

MILLER, CDOC Community Re-Entry 

Specialist; JOHN/JANE DOE, CDOC 

Grievance Coordinator, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 16-1257

(D.C. No. 1:15-CV-02757-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Upon opening this appeal, this court issued an order to Appellant Karl Singleton to 

respond in writing why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to 

the untimely filing of the notice of appeal. This matter is before us on Mr. Singleton’s 

Answer to Order. 

The notice of appeal in a civil case must be filed with the district clerk within 30 

days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). In this case, the district court 

entered judgment on March 17, 2016. Consequently, the notice of appeal was due no 

later than April 18, 2016. On June 17, 2016, the district court filed Mr. Singleton’s 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 14, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1257 Document: 01019656936 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 Page: 1 
2

notice of appeal, which had been received by this court on that date and forwarded to the 

district court for filing pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(d). 

In his response, Mr. Singleton states that he is a layman, has little idea what he is 

doing, and appreciates any help the court can give him. However, because the timely 

filing of a notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional, this court has no 

authority to grant any relief for an untimely filing. Bowels v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 

(2007). 

We note that “a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal will be considered timely if 

given to prison officials for mailing prior to the filing deadline, regardless of when the 

court itself receives the documents.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 

2005) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988)). Mr. Singleton asserts that he 

was incarcerated at the time he mailed his notice of appeal. But his notice of appeal, 

which was dated June 13, 2016, was not given to prison officials for mailing prior to the 

filing deadline.

Because the notice of appeal was untimely, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Jane K. Castro

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-1257 Document: 01019656936 Date Filed: 07/14/2016 Page: 2