Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01154/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01154-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Wayne Bingham
Appellant
The Attorney General of the State of Colorado
Appellee
Travis Trani
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

MICHAEL WAYNE BINGHAM, Native 

American "Chocta" National - "Texan" 

Stateless - Nonresident Non-Taxpayer 

Transient Choctaw, 

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TRAVIS TRANI, Warden, CDOC; THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE 

OF COLORADO, 

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 16-1154

(D.C. No. 1:15-cv-01229-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH, HOLMES, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Petitioner Michael Wayne Bingham appealed the district court’s order and final 

judgment dismissing his habeas corpus petition. The clerk entered an order to show cause 

as to why the appeal should not be dismissed as untimely filed. In response, Mr. Bingham 

filed in the district court a motion for relief from the untimely notice of appeal, but the 

district court declined to provide relief. Upon consideration, we have concluded that we 

are without jurisdiction to consider this untimely appeal.

Taking an appeal within the prescribed time is required to convey jurisdiction to 

this court. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 209 (2007). This court has no authority to 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 19, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-1154 Document: 01019658886 Date Filed: 07/19/2016 Page: 1 
2

make equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements. Id. at 216. Although Mr. 

Bingham is proceeding pro se, he must comply with the same procedural requirements as 

all other litigants. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007). 

In this case, the district court’s order dismissing Mr. Bingham’s habeas petition 

and final judgment were entered on December 28, 2015. A timely notice of appeal had to 

be filed by January 27, 2016. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal in civil 

case must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment). The notice of appeal was not 

filed until May 2, 2016 – more than three months after the filing deadline expired.

Mr. Bingham’s only potential remedy was to ask the district court to excuse his 

untimely filing, which he did. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(c); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) & (a)(6). 

But the district court denied Mr. Bingham’s request for either an extension of time to 

appeal or to file an appeal out of time. Mr. Bingham’s untimely notice of appeal is 

therefore unexcused. In sum, “[t]he time limit has run and we are without jurisdiction 

under the facts of this case.” Jenkins v. Burtzloff, 69 F.2d 460, 464 (10th Cir. 1995).

APPEAL DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

 Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-1154 Document: 01019658886 Date Filed: 07/19/2016 Page: 2