Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01101/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01101-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Colorado Mental Health Institute At Pueblo
Appellee
Travis Hodson
Appellant
The Attorney General of the State of Colorado
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

TRAVIS HODSON, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

COLORADO MENTAL HEALTH 

INSTITUTE AT PUEBLO; THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF COLORADO, 

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 15-1101

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-02879-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before HARTZ, HOLMES, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

This court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the notice of appeal was filed 

late. The district court’s judgment was entered on February 6, 2015. The petitioner sent a 

motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis to the district court, which was docketed 

as filed on March 16, 2015. Although the motion to proceed in forma pauperis may be 

construed as the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal, see Fleming v. Evans, 481 

F.3d 1249, 1253 (10th Cir. 2007), the motion was filed more than 30 days after entry of 

the district court judgment. See 28 U.S.C. § 2701(a) (where the United States is not a 

party, a notice of appeal in a civil matter must be filed within 30 days of entry of 

judgment); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (same). 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 29, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1101 Document: 01019437777 Date Filed: 05/29/2015 Page: 1 
2

This court gave the petitioner 21 days in which to file written proof that he mailed 

the in forma pauperis motion within the time to appeal, so that he would be allowed to 

benefit from the prisoner mailbox rule. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); United States v. 

Ceballos-Martinez, 387 F.3d 1140, 1145 (10th Cir. 2004) (holding that the requirements 

of Rule 4(c)(1) are mandatory and that in order to benefit from the prisoner mail box rule 

an inmate must “employ the methods provided by Congress [in Rule 4(c)(1)] to establish 

compliance ....”). 

This court’s order specifically set forth those requirements: “a declaration in 

compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 or a notarized statement setting forth the notice’s date 

of deposit with prison officials and ... a statement that first-class postage was pre-paid 

....” Ceballos, 387 at 1143. The response submitted by the petitioner does not meet these 

requirements. Accordingly, the notice of appeal was filed on the date it was received by 

the district court, which was more than 30 days after entry of judgment.

Because a timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional, see Bowles 

v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209, 213 (2007), this appeal is DISMISSED. This order does 

not impact appeal no. 15-1182, the petitioner’s appeal from the denial of his Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 60(b) motion.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Ellen Rich Reiter

 Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 15-1101 Document: 01019437777 Date Filed: 05/29/2015 Page: 2