Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-20-04011/USCOURTS-ca10-20-04011-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Peter Buchi
Appellant
United States Attorney General
Appellee
Utah Department of Homeland Security
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

VICTOR PETER BUCHI, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF UTAH, Entities of Federal & 

County Corrections; DIVISION OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY; GABRIEL 

POWERS, MD; ANDREW MCAIN; 

UTAH STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT 

BUREAU; BILLIE CASPER; MIKE 

HADDON; FNU SHARP; LEO LUCY 

KING; SCOTT DANIELS, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

VICTOR BUCHI, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

UTAH DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY; UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

No. 20-4010

(D.C. No. 2:19-CV-00325-CW)

(D. Utah)

No. 20-4011

(D.C. No. 2:19-CV-00350-DB)

(D. Utah)

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 24, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 20-4011 Document: 010110308391 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Page: 1
2

VICTOR BUCHI, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF PROBATION 

PAROLE; HOMELAND SECURITY; 

SALT LAKE CITY POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; SALT LAKE COUNTY 

DISTRICT ATTORNEY; UTAH STATE; 

FNU HADDON; FNU HALLSTROM; 

FNU STROMBERG; ANDREW MCAIN; 

FNU JOHNSON; ISSACSAY 

PETERSON; FNU ANDERSTAN; FNU 

SMITH; FNU TAYLOR; FNU 

ROCKWELL; FNU KIMBOL; FNU 

BUSWELL, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 20-4012

(D.C. No. 2:19-CV-00335-JNP)

(D. Utah)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BACHARACH and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Victor Peter Buchi, a Utah state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks appellate review 

of the United States District Court for the District of Utah’s dismissal of three separate 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions: (1) Buchi v. State of Utah, Entities of Fed. & State Corrections, 

et al., No. 2:19-cv-00325-CW (the action underlying Appeal No. 20-4010); (2) Buchi v. 

Utah Dep’t of Homeland Sec., et al., No. 2:19-cv-00350-DB (the action underlying 

Appeal No. 20-4011); and (3) Buchi v. Dep’t of Probation Parole, et al., No. 

2:19-cv-00335-JNP (the action underlying Appeal No. 20-4012). These matters are 

Appellate Case: 20-4011 Document: 010110308391 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Page: 2
3

before this court on: (a) the jurisdictional show cause orders it issued on January 24, 2020 

in each respective appeal; and (b) the response Mr. Buchi filed to the order issued in 

Appeal No. 20-4011.

“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. Buchi’s 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).

In the action underlying Appeal No. 20-4010, the district court dismissed the 

action and entered final judgment on November 6, 2019. [ECF Nos. 14-15 in 

No. 2:19-cv-00325-CW]. Although Mr. Buchi filed two post-judgment motions, neither 

of those motions were filed within 28 days after the district court entered its judgment 

and thus do not toll or extend the time Mr. Buchi had to file a notice of appeal from the 

judgment itself. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Accordingly, Mr. Buchi’s notice of 

his intent to appeal the judgment was due on or before December 6, 2019. 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”). However, the district 

court did not receive Mr. Buchi’s notice of appeal until January 24, 2020. [ECF No. 17 in 

No. 2:19-cv-00325-CW].

In the action underlying Appeal No. 20-4011, the district court dismissed the case 

and entered final judgment on October 7, 2019. [ECF Nos. 7-8 in No. 2:19-cv-00350-

Appellate Case: 20-4011 Document: 010110308391 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Page: 3
4

DB]. Although Mr. Buchi filed a motion to reinstate the case, he did not file that motion 

within 28 days after the district court entered its judgment and thus it does not toll or 

extend the time he had to file a notice of appeal from the judgment itself. See Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Accordingly, Mr. Buchi’s notice of his intent to appeal the 

judgment was due on or before December 6, 2019. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) (notice 

of appeal in civil case in which a United States officer is a defendant must be filed within 

60 days after entry of judgment). However, the district court did not receive Mr. Buchi’s 

notice of appeal until January 24, 2020. [ECF No. 9 in No. 2:19-cv-00350-DB].

Finally, in the action underlying Appeal No. 20-4012, the district court dismissed 

the action and entered final judgment on October 10, 2019. [ECF Nos. 7-8 in No. 

2:19-cv-00335-JNP]. Although Mr. Buchi filed a motion to reinstate the case, he did not 

file that motion within 28 days after the district court entered its judgment and thus it 

does not toll or extend the time he had to file a notice of appeal from the judgment itself. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Accordingly, Mr. Buchi’s notice of his intent to 

appeal the judgment was due on or before November 12, 2019. See Fed. R. App. P. 

4(a)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). However, the district court did not receive Mr. 

Buchi’s notice of appeal until January 24, 2020. [ECF No. 9 in No. 2:19-cv-00335-JNP].

“[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. Buchi did not timely request an extension of time from the district 

Appellate Case: 20-4011 Document: 010110308391 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Page: 4
5

court within which to file his notice of appeal in any one of these actions, 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. Buchi is likewise ineligible for an order reopening the time to appeal any one 

or more of these actions. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (allowing the district court to reopen 

the time to file an appeal only if certain conditions are met, including that the would-be 

appellant files a motion to reopen the time to file an appeal “within 180 days after the 

judgment . . . is entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice . . . of 

the entry, whichever is earlier” (emphasis added)). In the absence of a timely motion 

requesting relief under Rule 4(a)(6), the district court is without authority to reopen the 

time to appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (providing that district court may reopen the 

time to file an appeal, “but only if all the [specified] conditions are satisfied”); Portley-El 

v. Milyard, 364 F. App’x 912, 917 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).

As a result, the time limit to appeal the orders or judgments entered in any one or 

more of the actions underlying these appeals has run and the court is without jurisdiction 

to hear them. See Jenkins v. Burtzloff, 69 F.2d 460, 464 (10th Cir. 1995). In addition, Mr. 

Buchi’s failure to respond to the show cause orders issued in Case Nos. 20-4010 and 

20-4012 constitute separate and independent grounds for the dismissal of those appeals. 

See 10th Cir. R. 42.1. The court denies any pending requests for relief in all three 

appeals.

Appellate Case: 20-4011 Document: 010110308391 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Page: 5
6

APPEALS DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

by: Lisa A. Lee

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 20-4011 Document: 010110308391 Date Filed: 02/24/2020 Page: 6