Opinion ID: 172888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: t he m otion for r econsideration

Text: The district court determined that Mr. Jones’s notice of appeal divested it of jurisdiction to reconsider the order granting summary judgment. We review de novo a district court’s determination that it lacks jurisdiction. See June v. Union Carbide Corp., 577 F.3d 1234, 1238 (10th Cir. 2009). -10- Generally speaking, a timely notice of appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction. Warren v. American Bankers Ins. of Florida, 507 F.3d 1239, 1242 (10th Cir. 2007). But a motion for reconsideration of the district court’s judgment, filed within ten days of the judgment’s entry, postpones the notice of appeal’s effect until the motion is resolved. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Here, the judgment was entered on March 10, and Mr. Jones filed the motion on March 30—six days late, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(2) (excluding week-ends and holidays when the prescribed period is less than eleven days). Although Mr. Jones sent the motion using the prison’s “First Class U.S. Mailing procedures” on March 23, before the ten-day period expired, ROA, Vol. 1, Part 2, Doc. 44 at 3, that submission did not satisfy the prison mailbox rule. Under that rule, a prisoner’s motion is deemed filed when the prisoner gives it to prison officials for mailing, and either (1) specifically alleges that he used the prison’s “legal mail system”; or (2) “submits a notarized statement or a declaration under penalty of perjury of the date on which the documents were given to prison authorities and attests that postage was prepaid.” Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1166 (10th Cir. 2005). Mr. Jones failed to follow either approach. Cf. id. (holding that prisoner’s bare allegation “that he used ‘the institutional mails’ was insufficient to connote use of the ‘legal mail system’”). Consequently, -11- his motion for reconsideration was untimely, 4 and his simultaneously filed notice of appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction. C ONCLUSION The district court’s judgment, orders denying appointment of trial counsel, and order denying post-judgment motions are AFFIRMED. Mr. Jones’s motions for appointment of appellate counsel and for a temporary exemption from paying the filing fee are DENIED, and we remind him of his continuing obligation to make partial payments until his filing fee has been paid in full. Entered for the Court Deanell Reece Tacha