Opinion ID: 159592
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Kansas Board of Education

Text: In this last issue, plaintiffs argue that the district court improperly dismissed the Kansas Board of Education under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). We lack appellate jurisdiction to consider this issue. Specifically, the district court order from which plaintiffs seek relief was entered on November 10, 1998, approximately two months after their September 9, 1998 notice of appeal. The notice of appeal references only the two district court orders reviewed above. Plaintiffs must separately appeal the November 10, 1998 order and comply with the jurisdictional requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 3. See Nolan v. United States Dep’t of Justice , 973 F.2d 843, 846 (10th Cir. 1992) (“[A]ny subsequent appeals [after notice of appeal filed] must separately and individually comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure.”). For this reason, we also deny plaintiffs’ motion 4 In brief, plaintiffs argue that: while Joshua W. was not physically present in the Wichita USD, he continued to reside there; Joshua W.’s sister was acting as his parent; and Anita O.’s unilateral placement should not preclude reimbursement. -13- for leave to amend their appeal to include all adverse district court orders through April 26, 1999 in lieu of filing separate appeals.