T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he * d o ctri n es o f law o f th e c ase , res jud icata, and co ll ateral estop p el. T h is co u rt gener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or der and j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge ** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a ss ista n c e in th e d e ter m in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u 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. 

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

### S e p t e m b e r22,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT J ERRI BRA CK ETT, P lain tiff - A p p e llan t, v. P AUL HAU TAM AA, M . D. ; RUTH B. NAUT S , M . D. ; CO L OR ADO PER M A N EN TE M ED I CA L G RO U P, P . C. ; KAI S E R F OUNDA T I ON H E A L T H P L A N O F C O , IN C .; H O W A R D M . K IR S H B A U M , A rbit er; M I L E S F L E S CH E , Ch i e f Cl e r k ; J OHN DOE RN E R, Ch i e f

Cl e r k ; S US AN FE ST A G , C hi ef Cl erk, D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 1162 ( D . C . N o. 05- Z - 2578) (D . C o lo .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. ** Pet i t i oner - A ppel l antJ err i B r acke t t , pr ocee di ng pr o s e, s eeks t o appea l t he- 2 -

d istri ct co u rt ’s dism issal of h er c o m p lai n t cha ll en g ing the re su lto f o n e o r m o re a c tio n s filed in th e C o lo ra d o sta te c o u rts a s v io latin g h e r c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts to equ al prot ect i on and du e process. T he d i stri ctcou rtcon cl ud ed thatM s. B r acke t t ’ s fede r al cl ai m s w er e, underthe R ooker - Fel dm an doctr i ne, an im p erm issi b le att em p t t o see k rev iew o f a stat e c o u rtjud g m en t. T h e d istri ct co u rt found thati tl acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on and di s m i s s ed the compl ai nt p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 2 (h )(3 ), en ter in g a m u lti -p a g e “ o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t” o n Ja n u a ry2 4 , 2 0 0 6 . O n F e b ru a ry2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , M s. B ra c k e tt file d a m o tio n to r econs i derand forfur therr el i ef w hi ch the di s tr i ctcour tcons trued as a mot i on u n d er F ed . R . C iv. P. 60 (b). O n M arch 15 , 20 06 , the d i stri ctcou rtenter ed a seco nd order deny i ng M s. B racket t ’s m oti on for r econ si derat i on . S ub sequen t l y , on A pri l 13 , 20 06 , M s. B ra c k e tt file d a “ M o tio n to D isq u a lifyP u rsu a n t to 2 8 § 4 5 5 a n d R e q u e st to C ert i fyPur s uantt o 28 § 2403 ( I n L i eu of Perm i s s i on t o A ppeal ) , ” w hi ch w as d o c k e t e d b y th e d i s tr i c t c o u r t a s a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l . T h is c o u rt c a n n o t ex e rc ise ju risd ictio n a b se n t a tim e lyn o tice o f a p p e a l. U ni t ed St at es v. T orr es , 372 F. 3d 1159, 1161 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on o m itt e d ). If

w e w e re to c o n stru e th e A p ril 1 3 fili n g a s a n o tice o f a p p e a l, i t is c l e a rth a tth e a p p e a l f r o m th e d e n i a l o f

th e m o t i o n fo rr e c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t i m e l y, as the not i ce of

appea l w oul d be fi l ed w i thi n 30 day s of the or der . Fed. R . A pp. P. 4( a) ( 1) ( A ) . Fed. R . C i v. P. 58( a) ( 1) does notr equi r e thata s epar at e j udgm ent- 3 -

be ent er ed on the deni al of a Rul e 60( b) m ot i on, s o the t i m e forfi l i ng a not i ce of appea l w oul d begi n t o run w i th entryof the or derdeny i ng the mot i on for r econs i der at i on. A s n o te d , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt e n te re d a n o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t o n J a n u a ry 2 4 . E ven though t he or derand j udgm entpurpor t ed t o actual l yent erj udgm ent , the ju d g m e n t w a s n o t o n a se p a ra te d o c u m e n t as re q u ire d b yR u le 5 8 . T h e se p a ra te documentr equi r ementi s m echa ni cal l yappl i ed, s o an or dercont ai ni ng a r eas oned di s pos i t i on combi ned w i th a j udgm entw i l l nots at i s fythe rul e. C l ym or e v. U ni t ed St at es , 415 F. 3d 1113, 1117 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ; A l l i s on v. B ank- D enver , 289 F .3 d 1 2 2 3 , 1 2 3 2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). I n th e a b s e n c e o f a s e p a ra te d o c u m e n t, a j udgm enton the J anuary24 or derand j udgm enti s deemed ent er ed 150 day s aft er its e n tryo n th e d o c k e t. F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 8 (b )(2 )(B ). A s M s. B ra c k e tt’s o ste n sib le not i ce of

appea l w as fi l ed befor e the 150 day s had run, i tw oul d be t i m el y . See F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 (a)(1)(A ). M s. B rac k ettd id n o t fi le a fo rm al no ti ce o f a p p ea l, so w e m u st i n q u ir e w hetherherm ot i on t o di s qual i fyand ce r t i fyi s the “f unct i onal equi val entof a t i m el yappea l . ” See S m ith v . B a rry , 5 0 2 U .S . 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 -4 9 (1 9 9 2 ) (s tatin g th a t “if a documentfi l ed w i thi n the t i m e s peci fi ed byR ul e 4 gi ves the not i ce r equi r ed by R ule 3, i ti s effect i ve as a n oti ce of app eal . ”). “[A ] not i ce of app eal m ust s peci fi cal l yi ndi cat e the l i t i gant ’ s i nt entt o s eek appel l at e r evi ew , the purpos e of thi s r equi r ementi s t o ens ur e thatthe fi l i ng pr ovi des s uffi ci entnot i ce t o the other- 4 -

part i es and the court s . ” I d. at248 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . “[D ] et erm i ni ng w hethera mot i on i s t he func t i onal equi val entof a not i ce of appea l turns on the is s u e o f n o tic e .” U n ite d S ta te s v . S m ith , 1 8 2 F .3 d 7 3 3 , 7 3 5 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). R ul e 3 r equi r es not i ce of t hr ee e l ement s : “the partyorpart i es t aki ng the appe al by nami ng eac h one i n the capt i on orbodyof the not i ce” ; “the j udgm ent , or deror partther eof be i ng appea l ed”; and the “c our tt o w hi ch the appe al i s t aken. ” Fed. R . A p p . P . 3 (c )( 1 ). W hi l e w e m us t“cons true R ul e 3 l i ber al l yw hen det erm i ni ng w hetheri thas been c om pl i ed w i th, ” B arr y , 502 U . S. at248, M s . B r acke t t ’ s m ot i on fai l s t o m eet the mi ni m al not i ce r equi r ement s of R ul e 3 and i s notthe func t i onal equi val entof a ti m elyn o ti ce o f a p p ea l. T h e ti tl e o f M s. B rac k ett ’s m o ti o n stat es th at i t i s “In L ieu o f P e rm iss io n to A p p e a l.” F u rth e r, in th e m o tio n itse lf, M s. B ra c k e tt s peci fi cal l yr eques t s t hatt he court“al l ow Pl ai nt i ff t o bypas s a pet i t i on for perm i s s i on t o appea l ” and i ns t ead “ cons i dergr ant i ng a mot i on t o di s qual i fy . ” M o t. t o D ism iss a n d C e rtify at 4 . F in a lly , M s. B ra c k e tt’s m o tio n fa ils to sta te w hati s bei ng appea l ed. N othi ng i n M s . B r acke t t ’ s m ot i on w oul d pr ovi de not i ce to the rem ainin g p arti es o f h er inten t t o ap p ea l. If a n ything , M s. B rac k ett ’s m o t i o n e x p r e s s e s h e ri n t e n tn o tt o s e e k a fo r m a l n o t i c e o f a p p e a l . C o n s e q u e n t l y, M s . B r acke t t ’ s m ot i on fai l ed t o pr ovi de ade quat e not i ce a nd i tdoes nots erve as th e f u n c tio n a l e q u iv a le n t o f a tim e ly n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. A c c o r d i n g l yth i s c o u r tl a c k s j u r i s d i c t i o n a n d w e D I S MI S S th e a p p e a l . We- 5 -

D E N Y the m oti on t o p roceed in form a pau peri s. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge