Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-06140/USCOURTS-ca10-07-06140-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cortez Nathaniel Meadows
Appellant
Oklahoma City Municipal Court
Appellee

Document Text:

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has *

determined unanimously to grant Mr. Meadows’s request for a decision on the

briefs without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). 

The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and

judgment is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive

value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

 Mr. Meadows has, in 2006 and 2007, previously appealed the dismissal 1

of claims arising out of a separate driving under the influence incident, Meadows

v. Whetsel, 227 Fed. Appx. 769 (10th Cir. 2007), as well as claims for damages

from various Oklahoma County Sheriff’s personnel, Meadows v. Whetsel, No. 07-

6034 (10th Cir. filed June 22, 2006).

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

September 5, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CORTEZ NATHANIEL MEADOWS,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

OKLAHOMA CITY MUNICIPAL

COURT,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 07-6140

(D.C. No. CIV-07-345-W)

(W.D. Ok.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

*

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.

Mr. Meadows, a pro se litigant, appears before us now concerning alleged 1

constitutional violations arising from his 1999 conviction, in Oklahoma state

court, for driving under the influence of alcohol. We find certain aspects of Mr.

Appellate Case: 07-6140 Document: 010126602 Date Filed: 09/05/2007 Page: 1
 Mr. Meadows previously sought post-conviction relief from the 2

Oklahoma state courts, which was denied. 

- 2 -

Meadows’s appeal untimely and others barred by Rooker-Feldman. Accordingly,

we dismiss his appeal, and we also find it appropriate, as did the district court, to

deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

* * *

Mr. Meadows was convicted in Oklahoma City Municipal Court of driving

under the influence of alcohol in January 1999. Eight years later, in March 2007,

he filed in the Western District of Oklahoma what he labeled a “Motion for Leave

to File Motion to Vacate Judgment Out of Time,” asking the federal district court,

in substance, to vacate his 1999 state court conviction. Mr. Meadows alleged 2

that newly discovered evidence – the results of blood tests showing no alcohol in

his system – was illegally withheld at the time of his trial. This evidence, he said,

proved that he was innocent of the crime charged. He alleged due process

violations and asked that he be allowed to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere

and that the judgment and sentence be vacated.

The district court dismissed Mr. Meadows’s action. The court reasoned

that Mr. Meadows’s attempt to vacate his municipal court conviction constituted

“a collateral attack on, and/or an appeal of, the final judgment arising from that

conviction,” and that, as such, it was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine

prohibiting federal suits appealing state court judgments.

Appellate Case: 07-6140 Document: 010126602 Date Filed: 09/05/2007 Page: 2
- 3 -

Mr. Meadows moved to reconsider, again charging that the state trial court

violated his due process rights and adding that he received ineffective legal

assistance. The district court declined to reconsider its ruling, and Mr. Meadows

appealed. The district court subsequently denied Mr. Meadows’s application for

leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

* * *

We construe Mr. Meadows’s pro se filings liberally. Erickson v. Pardus,

--- U.S. ----, ----, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007); Van Deelen v. Johnson, --- F.3d --

-, 2007 WL 2309778, *1 n.1 (10th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we credit Mr.

Meadows with appealing both the dismissal of (1) his lawsuit and (2) his

subsequent motion to reconsider. Mr. Meadows also (3) renews his request to

proceed in forma pauperis. We address each of Mr. Meadows’s submissions in

turn.

1. We cannot help but find Mr. Meadows’s appeal of the dismissal of his

lawsuit to be untimely. Mr. Meadows’s Motion to Reconsider was not filed until

29 days after the initial judgment, and his notice of appeal was not filed until 67

days after the initial judgment. Generally, Mr. Meadows would have had only 30

days to file the notice of appeal, in order to timely appeal dismissal of the

underlying motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). To be sure, it was possible

for him to toll that time period by filing a motion to reconsider, id. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi),

but in order for that motion to have tolled the 30-day window, Mr. Meadows

Appellate Case: 07-6140 Document: 010126602 Date Filed: 09/05/2007 Page: 3
- 4 -

would have had to file it within 10 days of the initial judgment. See id.; Fed. R.

Civ. P. 59(e); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). This he simply did not do. While

we construe pro se pleadings with special solicitude, under our precedents Mr.

Meadows’s pro se status may not excuse his obligation to comply with the

fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure,

including filing a timely notice of appeal. See Ogden v. San Juan County, 32

F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994); Senjuro v. Murray, 943 F.2d 36, 38 (10th Cir.

1991) (per curiam). Filing a timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and

jurisdictional. Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir.

2006). As such, we find ourselves compelled to dismiss Mr Meadows’s appeal of

the underlying motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Senjuro, 943 F.2d at 38.

2. While Mr. Meadows’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his

motion to reconsider was timely filed, that document still seeks, in essence, to

overturn a conviction from the Oklahoma City Municipal Court system. This

amounts, as the district court found, to an appeal from, or collateral attack on, the

state court’s judgment, and it is not allowed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

See Bolden v. City of Topeka, Kan., 441 F.3d 1129, 1139 (10th Cir. 2006) (“The

Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits federal suits that amount to appeals of

state-court judgments.”). Rooker-Feldman is a jurisdictional limit on federal

district and appellate courts, and it prohibits us from reviewing state court

decisions. See Wright, Miller & Cooper, 18B Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 4469.1 (“The

Appellate Case: 07-6140 Document: 010126602 Date Filed: 09/05/2007 Page: 4
- 5 -

general statutes that establish original federal subject-matter jurisdiction in the

district courts do not extend to an ‘appeal’ from a state-court judgment.”). 

Accordingly, we have no choice but to dismiss Mr. Meadows’s appeal of the

district court’s ruling on his motion to reconsider for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. See Mann v. Boatright, 477 F.3d 1140, 1145-46 (10th Cir. 2007)

(affirming that the proper remedy for claims brought in contravention of RookerFeldman is dismissal for lack of jurisdiction).

3. Finally, we deny Mr. Meadows’s motion to proceed in forma

pauperis. In doing the same, the district court certified that Mr. Meadows’s

appeal was not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Given the

complete lack of legal authority to sustain his appeal, we are forced to agree. 

* * *

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment

dismissing the motion to reconsider, and we deny Mr. Meadows’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Neil M. Gorsuch

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-6140 Document: 010126602 Date Filed: 09/05/2007 Page: 5