A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Jan u ary29,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT JO A N H E F F IN G T O N , ind iv id u a lly a n d o n b e h a lf

o f h e r M in o r S o n G .M ., P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. S EDGW I CK COUNTY DI S TRI CT CO UR T, W i c h i t a , Kan s a s ; NO LA F O U L S T O N , S e d g w ick C o u n ty D istri ct A tt o rne y ; JU L IA C R A F T -R O C H A T , S e d g w ick C o u n ty C o u r t - A p p o i n t e d A t t o r n e y,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 3372 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 4 0 2 8 - S AC)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HO LM ES , M c KAY , and BROR BY , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pl ai nt i ff- A ppel l antJ oan H eff i ngt on appea l s t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s or der d e n y i n g h e rF e d . R. Ci v . P . 6 0 ( b ) mo t i o n . W e a ffi r m.- 2-

H eff i ngt on fi l ed an a m ended pr o s e compl ai nt , purpor t edl yon behal f of her s el f and he rm i nors on, “G . M . , ” aga i ns tthe Sedgw i ck C ounty , K ans as , D i s t r i ct C our tand i ndi vi dual defe ndant s N ol a Foul s t on, the Sedgw i ck C ountyD i s tr i ct A t t or ney , and J ul i e C r aft - R ochat , a pr i vat e att or neyw ho had bee n appoi nt ed as couns el forG . M . i n t w o j uveni l e cr i m i nal cas es . T he compl ai nti ncl uded a due p ro c e ss c laim u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 a n d n u m e ro u s s tate law c laim s re latin g to a n a lleg e d ill e g a l co n sp ira c yb e tw e e n th e d e fe n d a n ts w ith re sp e c t to a lleg e d ly fa lse c rim in a l ch a rg e s filed a g a in st G .M . T h e d istric t co u rt g ra n ted w ith pr ej udi ce the defendant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s al l cl ai m s and ent er ed j udgm entof d ism issal on Ju n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 5 . A m o n g o ther b ase s fo r dism issal, the d istri ct co u rt hel d t hatpl ai nt i ff c oul d not , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, br i ng cl ai m s on behal f of he r m i nors on, and thather§ 1983 due pr oces s cl ai m fai l ed t o as s er tanyvi ol at i on of h e r o w n le g a l r ig h ts a n d in te re s ts . W i t houti ndi cat i ng w hatcourtrul e i tw as fi l ed under , H eff i ngt on fi l ed a M ot i on t o R econs i deron J ul y5, 2005. I n thatm ot i on, s he di d notchal l enge the s ubs t ance of the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al or der . I ns t ead, s he ar gued the di s m i s s al sh o u ld b e se t as id e b e c a u se , o n th e sa m e d a yth a t th e d istric t co u rt e n ter e d its o rde r dism issi n g the c o m p lai n t, a m ag istrate jud g e e n tered a sc h ed u li n g o rde r, w hi ch s he cons t rued as r equi r i ng the part i es t o m edi at e. H eff i ngt on ar gued that th e s c h e d u lin g /m e d ia tio n o rd e r s h o u ld ta k e p re c e d e n c e o v e r t h e d is m is s a l o rd e r. T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed herm ot i on t o r econs i der , r eas oni ng thati tw as notfi l ed- 3-

underFed. R . C i v. P. 60, beca us e i ts t at ed no gr ound forr el i ef s etfor th i n that rul e. M or eover , t he di s t r i ctcourthel d thatthe J ul y5 m ot i on w as unt i m el yi f fi l ed underFed. R . C i v. P. 59( e) , w hi ch r equi r es thata mot i on t o al t eroramend a j udgm ent“s hal l be fi l ed no l at erthan 10 day s aft erentryof the j udgm ent . ” B eca us e the di s t r i ctcour tent er ed j udgm entdi s m i s s i ng pl ai nt i ff’ s compl ai nton J u n e 1 7 , a m o tio n u n d e r R u le 5 9 (e ) h a d to b e file d n o la te r t h a n J u ly 1 . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 6( a) ( excl udi ng i nt erveni ng Satur day s , Sunday s and l egal hol i day s fr om t he comput at i on w hen the per i od of t i m e pr es cr i bed oral l ow ed i s l es s than el even day s ) . T he di s t r i ctcourtconcl uded i thad no author i tyt o gr antpl ai nt i ff a n e x te n s io n o f

tim e to file h e r R u le 5 9 (e ) m o tio n . See Fed. R . C i v. P. 6( b) ( pr ecl udi ng ext ens i ons of t i m e fort aki ng act i on underR ul e 59( e) ) . T he di s tr i ct c o u rt a lso sta ted th a t, i n a n ye v e n t, H e ffin g to n ’s m o tio n w a s w ith o u t m e rit. P lai n ti ff then fil ed a M o ti o n to S et A side O rde r un d er F ed . R . C iv. P. 60 (b), i n w hi ch s he ar gued thatherJ ul y5 m ot i on w as notunt i m el ybeca us e, underFed. R . C i v. P. 6( e) , t he dea dl i ne t o fi l e w as ext ended bythr ee da y s due t o s ervi ce by m ail o f th e d ism issal ord er. O n the m erit s, sh e a sserted that the d istri ct co u rt abus ed i t s di s cr et i on bydeny i ng herJ ul y5 m ot i on, and s he as ked the di s tr i ct co u rtto rec o n side r th e m ag istrate’s sch ed u li n g o rde r an d it s d ism issal ord er, beca us e the l aw r equi r es l i t i gant s i n ci vi l cas es t o cons i derm edi at i on. T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed thi s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on on A ugus t31, not i ng thatnone of the gr ounds as s ert ed fe l l w i t hi n t he s i x gr ounds forr el i ef s peci fi ed i n thatrul e. T he- 4-

di s t r i ctcourtfur t heror der ed thatH eff i ngt on w as pr ecl uded fr om fi l i ng, w i thout l eave of court , anynew m ot i on i n t hi s cas e bas ed on the s ame al l egat i ons or gr ounds t hathad bee n deci ded i n the court ’ s pr i oror der s . O n Sept ember26, 2 0 0 5 , H effin g ton fil ed a n o ti ce ap p ea li n g “the fin al j u d g m en t of the d istri ct co u rt

. . . ent er ed i n t hi s cas e on A ugus t31, 2005. ” R . , D oc 36 at1. Scope of

A ppeal “The fi l i ng of a t i m el ynot i ce of appea l i s an abs ol ut e pr er equi s i t e t o our j ur i s di ct i on. ” P a rk e r v . B d . o f P u b . Util . , 7 7 F . 3 d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 0 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). J ul y18, 2005, w as t he dea dl i ne forH eff i ngt on t o fi l e a not i ce appeal i ng the d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t o f d is m is s a l e n te re d o n J u n e 1 7 . See Fe d. R. A pp . P. 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) . A t i m el ym ot i on fi l ed underFed. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 4) ( A ) coul d ext end th e d e a d lin e fo r a n o tic e o f a p p e a l, b u t p la in tiff

d id n o t file s u c h a m o tio n . W h e t h e rh e rJ u l y5 mo t i o n wa s fi l e d u n d e rF e d . R. Ci v . P . 6 0 o rF e d . R. C i v. P. 59( e) , i tw as notfi l ed w i thi n t en day s of the entryof j udgm entand th e re fo re d id n o t ex ten d h e r tim e to a p p e a l. H eff i ngt on as s ert s t hat , underFed. R . C i v. P. 6( e) , t he dea dl i ne t o fi l e her J ul y5 m ot i on w as ext ended byt hr ee da y s , beca us e the di s tr i ctcourts erved herby m a il w ith th e ju d g m e n t o f d ism iss a l. B u t th a t th re e -d a ye x ten sio n a p p lies o n ly “[w ] heneve ra part ym us torm ayactw i thi n a pr es cr i bed per i od aft ers ervi ce” m ade i n a s peci fi ed manner . Fed. R . C i v. P. 6( e) . I n P arker , 7 7 F . 3 d a t1 2 9 1 , we hel d t hatt he thr ee- daym ai l pr ovi s i on of R ul e 6( e) does notext end the t en- dayW e n o te, h o w e v e r, th a t th e d istric t co u rt’s r e v iew o f d e fe n d a n ts’ m o tio n to 1 di s m i s s w as bot h t hor ough and gene r ous t o the pl ai nt i ff’ s i nt er es t s , and thatt he d istri ct co u rt ’s dism issal of the c o m p lai n t un d er Meekerv. Ker cher , 782 F. 2d 153, 154 ( 10t h C i r . 1986) ( “[A ] m i norchi l d cannotbr i ng s ui tt hr ough a par entact i ng as nextfr i end i f the par enti s notr epr es ent ed byan att or ney . ”) , and War th v. S e ld in , 4 2 2 U. S . 4 9 0 , 4 9 9 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ( “ [ T ] h e p l a i n t i ff g e n e r a l l ymu s ta s s e r th i s o wn l egal r i ght s and i nt er es t s , and ca nnotr es thi s cl ai m t o r el i ef on the l egal r i ght s or in ter e sts o f

th ird p a rties .”), a p p e a rs to h a v e b e e n c o rre c t.

- 5- deadl i ne forfi l i ng a R ul e 59( e) m ot i on, beca us e the dea dl i ne forfi l i ng s uch a mo t i o n i s t r i g g e r e d b ye n t r yo f j u d g me n ta n d n o tb ys e r v i c e o f n o t i c e . Th e s a me re a so n in g a p p lies to a R u le 6 0 m o tio n , w h ich u n d e r F e d . R . A p p . P . 4 (a )(4 )(A )(v i) mu s tb e fi l e d wi t h i n t e n d a y s o f e n tryo f j u d g me n ti n o r d e rt o e x t e n d th e t i me per i od forfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l . T her efor e, beca us e H eff i ngt on fai l ed t o fi l e a not i ce of

appea l w i t hi n t hi r t yday s of entryof j udgm ent , and no i nt erveni ng m ot i on ext ended thatdeadl i ne, t hi s courtdoes nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o hearher a p p e a l o f

th e d istric t co u rt’s ju d g m e n t o f d ism iss a l. 1 P lai n ti ff also d id n o t fi le a ti m elyn o ti ce o f a p p ea l of the d istri ct co u rt ’s deni al of herJ ul y5 m ot i on, w hi ch w as ent er ed on A ugus t4, 2005. C ons trui ng h er S ep tem b er 2 6 , 2 0 0 5 , p ro se n o ti ce o f a p p ea l l ibera ll y , w e c o n clud e, ho w ev er, that this co u rtd o es h av e jurisdicti o n to co n side r he r ap p ea l of the d istri ct co u rt ’s d e n ia l o f

h e r R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n , w h ic h w a s e n te re d o n A u g u s t 3 1 , 2 0 0 5 . See Shapol i a v. Los Al am os Nat ’ lLab. , 992 F. 2d 1033, 1036 n. 3 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( l i ber al l ycons t rui ng pr o s e not i ce of appea l as t o w hi ch or derw as appea l ed fro m ).- 6- R evi ew of

D eni al of

R ul e 60( b) M ot i on

“ A d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n to g ra n t o r d e n ya R u le 6 0 (b ) m o tio n is re v ie w e d fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Yapp v. Exce lC or p. , 186 F. 3d 1222, 1230 ( 10t h C i r . 1999) . R el i ef unde rR ul e 60( b) “i s extr aor di naryand mayonl ybe gr ant ed i n exce pt i onal ci r cumst ance s . ” Id. at1231 ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t H e ffin g to n ’s m o tio n d id n o t ra ise a n yg ro u n d listed in R u le 60( b) . I n herr epl yt o defe ndant s ’ oppos i t i on, s he di d ar gue thatherm ot i on s oughtr el i ef unde rFed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) ( 1) and Fed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) ( 3) . She a c c u se d th e d istric t co u rt o f “ in e x c u sa b le n e g lec t,” R ., D o c . 3 4 a t 1 , b a se d o n its al l eged de l ayi n m ai l i ng t he j udgm entof di s m i s s al t o her , and s he ar gued further t hatas a r es ul tof thatl ack of pr opernot i ce, “defendant s w er e i n vi ol at i on of R ul e 60 due t o ‘ m i s t ake, i nadvert ence , s urpr i s e, orexcus abl e negl ect , ’ ” i d. a t 2 . P l a i n t i ff a l s o c l a i me d th a t“ t wo d i ffe r e n td e c i s i o n s e n t e r e d t h e s a me d a yb yt wo di ffe r entj udges i m pl i es ‘ fr aud ( w hetherher et ofor e denomi nat ed i ntr i ns i c or extr i ns i c) , m i s r epr es ent at i on, orotherm i s conductof an a dver s e party . ’ ” Id. W e agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcourtt hatH eff i ngt on’ s m ot i on r ai s ed no pr oper gr ound forr el i ef unde rR ul e 60( b) . Fur ther , t he under l y i ng i s s ue r ai s ed by pl ai nt i ff–thatt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s di s m i s s al of the compl ai ntforfai l ur e t o s t at e a cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c oul d be gr ant ed s houl d be s etas i de i n favorof a m agi s t r at e j udge’ s s chedul i ng or der–i s w i thoutm er i t . W e hol d thatt he di s tr i ct cour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng pl ai nt i ff’ s R ul e 60( b) m ot i on.- 7-

T he j udgm entof the di s t r i ctcour ti s A FFIRM E D . T he mot i on t o pr ocee d i n form a paupe r i s i s D E N I E D . W e r emi nd H eff i ngt on of herr es pons i bi l i tyt o pay th e a p p e llate fili n g fe e in f u ll. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt M onr oe G . M cK ay C i r cui tJ udge