Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06088/USCOURTS-ca10-15-06088-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Debbie Adams
Appellee
Mel Almaguer
Appellee
Carl Bear
Appellee
Margaret Bradford
Appellee
Dale E. Harper
Appellant
Hernandez
Appellee
David Houck
Appellee
Justin Jones
Appellee
Paula Beth LNU
Appellee
Mrs. McGill
Appellee
Debbie Morton
Appellee
James Rudek
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

DALE E. HARPER, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JAMES RUDEK, Warden; DEBBIE 

MORTON, Director's Designee; JUSTIN 

JONES, Director DOC; CARL BEAR, 

Warden's Assist; MEL ALMAGUER, Unit 

Mgr; DAVID HOUCK, Case Mgr; 

HERNANDEZ, Guard OSR; MRS. 

McGILL, Yard Lt OSR; PAULA BETH 

LNU, Law Librarian; DEBBIE ADAMS, 

Law Librarian; MARGARET 

BRADFORD, Executive Dir OK Forensics 

Center; JOHN DOE, 2 Unknown Orderlies, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 15-6088

(D.C. No. 5:11-CV-00995-HE)

(W.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Plaintiff Dale Harper filed a “Notice of Intent to Appeal” on May 7, 2015. We 

dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Mr. Harper’s underlying civil rights action was dismissed on March 12, 2014, 

pursuant to a stipulation filed by his attorney. On March 2, 2015, Mr. Harper filed an 

appeal challenging the underlying settlement which formed the basis of the stipulation. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 12, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-6088 Document: 01019444079 Date Filed: 06/12/2015 Page: 1 
2

This court dismissed that appeal as untimely. See Harper v. Rudek, No. 15-6033 (10th 

Cir. Mar. 20, 2015). 

Mr. Harper filed a document entitled “Petition” in the district court on April 6, 

2015. The district court struck the document in an order entered on April 22, 2015. Mr. 

Harper then filed a pleading entitled “Notice of Intent to Appeal” on May 7, 2015.

The May 7 pleading does not state that Mr. Harper is seeking review of the order 

entered on April 22, the only order which was entered within 30 days of the filing of the 

notice of appeal. Rather, the pleading alleges that the settlement is based on “fraud” and 

then sets out several complaints regarding prison officials. 

Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) provides that a notice of appeal must “designate the 

judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” Mr. Harper’s pleading fails to indicate 

any appealable order. Rule 3 is jurisdictional. Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bartile 

Roofs, Inc., 618 F.3d 1153, 1164 n.9 (10th Cir. 2010) (citing to Torres v. Oakland 

Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 316 (1988)). No intent to seek review in this court can be 

gleaned from the document filed by Mr. Harper. See Manco v. Werholtz, 528 F.3d 760, 

762 (10th Cir. 2008) (refusing to construe a motion for reconsideration as the functional 

equivalent of a notice of appeal because the pleading did not convey the petitioner’s 

Appellate Case: 15-6088 Document: 01019444079 Date Filed: 06/12/2015 Page: 2 
3

intention to appeal). 

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Ellen Rich Reiter

 Jurisdictional Attorney

Appellate Case: 15-6088 Document: 01019444079 Date Filed: 06/12/2015 Page: 3