Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02223/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02223-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marty Robert Begay
Appellant
Dwayne Santistevan
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

MARTY ROBERT BEGAY, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DWAYNE SANTISTEVAN, 

 Defendant - Appellee.

No. 15-2223

(D.C. No. 1:13-CV-00515-LH-LF)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

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

_________________________________

Marty Begay, an inmate appearing pro se, seeks to appeal the district court’s 

dismissal of his prisoner civil rights suit. This matter is before us on the parties’ 

responses to the court’s order of December 11, 2015 directing Mr. Begay to show cause 

why his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to his failure to timely 

file the notice of appeal.

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). “[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 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 27, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2223 Document: 01019561268 Date Filed: 01/27/2016 Page: 1 
2

1158, 1163-64 (10th Cir. 2005) (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988)). To 

invoke this so-called “prison mailbox rule,” a prisoner must use the prison’s legal mail 

system if one is available. See id. at 1165. A prisoner who does not have access to a 

legal mail system must submit a declaration under penalty of perjury or a notarized 

statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit with prison officials and state 

that first-class postage has been prepaid. See id.

In this case, the district court dismissed Mr. Begay’s complaint and entered final 

judgment on November 6, 2015. Mr. Begay’s notice of appeal was due 30 days later, or 

no later than December 7, 2015. The district court received and filed Mr. Begay’s pro se

notice of appeal on December 9, 2015. The notice of appeal is dated December 4, 2015, 

and contains the following certificate of service:

I do hereby certify that a true and correct copy has been sent via U.S. Postal 

Service by mail on December 4th 2015 to attorneys for Defendant Dwayne 

Santistevan.

Mr. Begay did not allege use of the prison’s legal mail system, nor did he allege 

use of the prison’s regular mail system in combination with a notarized statement or a 

declaration under penalty of perjury setting forth the date the notice of appeal was given 

to prison authorities and attesting that postage was prepaid. As a result, this court issued 

an order to Mr. Begay to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal. In his response, Mr. Begay 

does not address the timeliness of his notice of appeal or attempt to satisfy the 

requirements of the prison mailbox rule to establish timely filing. Appellee Dwayne 

Appellate Case: 15-2223 Document: 01019561268 Date Filed: 01/27/2016 Page: 2 
3

Santistevan argues that Mr. Begay’s notice of appeal was untimely and this court must 

dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We agree.

Because Mr. Begay’s notice of appeal was filed more than 30 days after entry of 

judgment and Mr. Begay has not established timely filing under the prison mailbox rule, 

this court lacks 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: 15-2223 Document: 01019561268 Date Filed: 01/27/2016 Page: 3