Case Name: Chris TILLOTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PUEBLO STATE HOSPITAL; The State Attorney General, Defendant-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-21
Citations: 551 F. App'x 447
Docket Number: No. 13-1406
Parties: Chris TILLOTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PUEBLO STATE HOSPITAL; The State Attorney General, Defendant-Appellees.
Judges: Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 551
Pages: 447–448

Head Matter:
Chris TILLOTSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PUEBLO STATE HOSPITAL; The State Attorney General, Defendant-Appellees.
No. 13-1406.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
Jan. 21, 2014.
Chris Tillotson, Pueblo, CO, pro se.
Before HARTZ, GORSUCH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER AND JUDGMENT
Chris Tillotson filed suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Pueblo State Hospital and the Attorney General of Colorado. The district court dismissed the complaint as legally frivolous because it did not allege facts stating any colorable claim against the named defendants and it was barred by the statute of limitations. Mr. Tillotson then filed an untimely appeal, which we dismissed, noting that he had not requested an extension of time from the district court. A week after our dismissal, he filed a pleading in district court requesting an extension "on the statue [sic] of limitations in the case." R. at 46. We liberally construe this request as a motion to extend time for filing a notice of appeal. The district court denied the request. Mr. Til-lotson appeals.
Mr. Tillotson's brief in this court argues only the merits of his underlying claim, not the propriety of the denial of his extension request, which is all that we have jurisdiction to review. See Bishop v. Corsentino, 371 F.3d 1203, 1206 (10th Cir.2004) ("A district court's order refusing to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal is itself an appealable final judgment."); Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1008-09 (10th Cir.2000) (court has jurisdiction to review denial of a postjudgment Rule 60(b) motion but appeal does not extend to review of decision underlying the judgment). Our review of denial of a motion to extend time for appeal is for abuse of discretion. See Bishop, 371 F.3d at 1206. We see no abuse of discretion here.
We AFFIRM the district court's decision and DISMISS the appeal. We DENY Mr. Tillotson's motion to pay the filing fee in partial payments and remind him that he must pay the full fee.
After examining appellant's brief and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32 .1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.