Court Opinion

ID: 9950561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-14 15:02:16.022903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:24.866924
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 22-1413     Document: 010111015806      Date Filed: 03/14/2024   Page: 1
                                                                                 FILED
                                                                     United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                        March 14, 2024
                          _________________________________
                                                                        Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                            Clerk of Court
  DOUGLAS BRUCE, an individual,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,

  v.                                                         No. 22-1413
                                                (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-02427-RMR-MDB)
  CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, a                                 (D. Colo.)
  municipal government within the State of
  Colorado; PIKES PEAK REGIONAL
  BUILDING DEPARTMENT, an
  intergovernmental agency within the State
  of Colorado; ROGER LOVELL, in his
  official capacity as the Director of the
  Pikes Peak Regional Building Department;
  EL PASO COUNTY, a municipal
  government within the State of Colorado;
  MARK LOWDERMAN, in his official
  capacity as the El Paso County Public
  Trustee,

        Defendants - Appellees.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges.
                   _________________________________

       *
         After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
 unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of
 this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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.
Appellate Case: 22-1413    Document: 010111015806       Date Filed: 03/14/2024       Page: 2

       Douglas Bruce appeals from a district court order denying his motion to extend

 the time to file a notice of appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,

 we affirm.

                                  I. BACKGROUND

       Mr. Bruce brought the underlying case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after the

 defendants demolished a building on his property and attached a lien for the

 demolition costs. The district court granted the defendants’ joint motions to dismiss

 and entered final judgment on September 27, 2022. Mr. Bruce then had thirty days to

 file his notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). The

 thirtieth day was October 27, 2022. Mr. Bruce filed his notice of appeal on October

 28, one day late.

       That same day, he also moved to extend the notice of appeal deadline, arguing

 he missed the deadline due to excusable neglect. Mr. Bruce explained counsel was

 unaware he had failed to complete the filing process through the district court’s

 electronic filing system and mistakenly believed he timely noticed the appeal days

 earlier, on October 21. The defendants opposed the requested relief.

       On November 2, 2022, the district court denied Mr. Bruce’s motion and found

 his notice of appeal ineffective. Mr. Bruce then filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss

 his appeal, which we granted. See Bruce v. City of Colo. Springs, No. 22-1379, 2022

                                            2
Appellate Case: 22-1413     Document: 010111015806         Date Filed: 03/14/2024     Page: 3

 WL 19693444, at *1 (10th Cir. Nov. 22, 2022). The instant appeal—challenging the

 district court’s refusal to extend the filing deadline—followed.1

                                    II. DISCUSSION

        A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case.

 Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The requirement cannot be forfeited or

 waived; in other words, we cannot hear an appeal if the notice of appeal is filed after

 the deadline. See id. at 213; Alva v. Teen Help, 469 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir. 2006).

 But the district court can extend the time for a party to file a notice of appeal if “that

 party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii).

        We review the district court’s refusal to extend the notice of appeal filing

 deadline for abuse of discretion. Bishop v. Corsentino, 371 F.3d 1203, 1206

 (10th Cir. 2004). Under this standard, we will not disturb the district court’s decision

 unless we have “a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error

 of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.”

 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “An error of law is per se an abuse of

 discretion.” United States v. Lopez-Avila, 665 F.3d 1216, 1219 (10th Cir. 2011).

        Mr. Bruce asserted only excusable neglect as grounds to extend the notice of

 appeal deadline; he did not make an argument that good cause also warranted relief.

        1
          We ordered the parties to brief whether the dismissal of the underlying merits
 appeal means there is no longer an “actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable
 judicial decision.” Audubon of Kan., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 67 F.4th 1093,
 1102 (10th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, because we
 affirm the district court, we need not address the voluntary dismissal of the
 underlying merits appeal.
                                              3
Appellate Case: 22-1413    Document: 010111015806        Date Filed: 03/14/2024     Page: 4

 See Aplt. App. at 76 (“Admittedly the reason for the delay was within the reasonable

 control of counsel for Mr. Bruce.”).2 We thus limit our analysis to the argument

 Mr. Bruce made in district court.

       Courts should not extend the notice of appeal deadline for excusable neglect

 absent unique and extraordinary circumstances. Bishop, 371 F.3d at 1206–07. To

 that end, relevant factors include (1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party;

 (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the

 reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the

 movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Id. at 1206.

       Mr. Bruce contends the district court abused its discretion by rejecting his

 excusable neglect argument. He contends the district court mistakenly relied on case

 law finding that a lawyer’s mistake in calculating a deadline or misunderstanding the

 filing rules did not constitute excusable neglect. Unlike those cases, the record here

 shows a different kind of mistake that Mr. Bruce insists is excusable neglect. As

 Mr. Bruce explains, “counsel made an error in operating the electronic filing system

 and mistakenly believed” he actually filed the notice of appeal several days before

 the deadline. Aplt. Opening Br. at 11.

       After carefully examining the record on appeal, we conclude the district court

 acted well within its discretion in rejecting Mr. Bruce’s excusable neglect argument.

       2
        Good cause “comes into play in situations in which there is no fault—
 excusable or otherwise. In such situations, the need for an extension is usually
 occasioned by something that is not within the control of the movant.” Bishop,
 371 F.3d at 1207 (internal quotation marks omitted).
                                            4
Appellate Case: 22-1413     Document: 010111015806        Date Filed: 03/14/2024    Page: 5

 Although we agree that counsel’s reason for missing the deadline in this case is

 factually distinguishable from miscalculating a deadline or misunderstanding the

 filing rules, this is a distinction without a meaningful difference.

        Counsel’s reason for missing the deadline is “perhaps the most important

 single factor . . . in determining whether neglect is excusable.” City of Chanute v.

 Williams Nat. Gas Co., 31 F.3d 1041, 1046 (10th Cir. 1994). The reason for

 Mr. Bruce’s filing delay was his counsel’s inadvertence. And we have long

 recognized that inadvertence rarely constitutes excusable neglect. See United States

 v. Torres, 372 F.3d 1159, 1163 (10th Cir. 2004). Importantly, Mr. Bruce failed to

 provide the district court with his counsel’s reason for missing the deadline. The first

 time he explained the circumstances that caused his counsel’s inadvertence was in his

 reply brief on appeal.3 We do not doubt the challenging circumstances facing

 Mr. Bruce’s counsel, but on the basis of the record and arguments before us, we

 cannot say the district court abused its discretion by refusing to extend the deadline

 for filing a notice of appeal.4

        3
          See Aplt. Reply Br. at 3–4 (explaining Mr. Bruce’s counsel had recently
 returned to a full email inbox and many other pending matters that had accumulated
 after he “missed a significant period of time to care for his son who had come down
 with his second bout of COVID,” and he “neglected to check for the filing
 confirmation” for the notice of appeal).
        4
         Finally, we need not address the impact of the voluntary dismissal of the
 underlying merits appeal because we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion
 for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

                                             5
Appellate Case: 22-1413    Document: 010111015806            Date Filed: 03/14/2024   Page: 6

                                  III. CONCLUSION

       We affirm the district court’s order denying Mr. Bruce’s motion for an

 extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

                                                 Entered for the Court

                                                 Veronica S. Rossman
                                                 Circuit Judge

                                             6