Court Opinion

ID: 9903732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:01:37.416523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:40.764428
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-6084     Document: 010110958312        Date Filed: 11/27/2023     Page: 1
                                                                                    FILED
                                                                        United States Court of Appeals
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           Tenth Circuit

                              FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT                         November 27, 2023
                          _________________________________
                                                                           Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                               Clerk of Court
  DAVID HAWKINS, as personal
  representative of the Estate of Peggy
  Robinson,

        Plaintiff - Appellant,
                                                               No. 23-6084
  v.                                                  (D.C. No. 5:22-CV-00536-SLP)
                                                               (W.D. Okla.)
  CUNA MUTUAL GROUP, d/b/a CMFG
  Life Insurance Company,

        Defendant - Appellee.
                       _________________________________

                              ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, KELLY, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
                  _________________________________

       David Hawkins appeals the district court’s order refusing to grant relief under

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) from its earlier denial of Hawkins’s

 untimely motion to extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal in the underlying

 litigation. Finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling that Rule 60(b)

       *
         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 This order and judgment is not binding
 precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral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. But it may be cited for its persuasive value. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a);
 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
Appellate Case: 23-6084    Document: 010110958312         Date Filed: 11/27/2023     Page: 2

 relief was unavailable because Hawkins’s extension motion was untimely under the

 jurisdictional statute governing civil appeal deadlines, we affirm.

                                       Background

       In the underlying insurance action, the district court granted summary

 judgment to defendants on January 13, 2023. By statute, Hawkins had 30 days to file

 a notice of appeal, until February 13, 2023. 1 See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a) (“[N]o appeal

 shall bring any judgment, order[,] or decree in an action, suit[,] or proceeding of a

 civil nature before a court of appeals for review unless notice of appeal is filed[]

 within [30] days after the entry of such judgment.”). He also had 30 additional “days

 after the expiration of the time otherwise set for bringing appeal” to file a motion to

 extend the appeal deadline based “upon a showing of excusable neglect or good

 cause.” § 2107(c). That second deadline fell on March 15, 2023. 2

       1
           The thirtieth day fell on February 12, 2023, a Sunday, so the deadline shifted
 to the next day. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C) “([I]f the last day is a Saturday,
 Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that
 is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.”).
         2
           These statutory deadlines for civil appeals are implemented in Federal Rule
 of Appellate Procedure 4(a). Alva v. Teen Help, 469 F.3d 946, 950, 953 (10th Cir.
 2006). As to the initial appeal deadline, the rule provides that “the notice of appeal
 . . . must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or
 order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). For extension motions, the rule
 states that “[t]he district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if: (i) a
 party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a)
 expires; and (ii) . . . that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App.
 P. 4(a)(5)(A). Notably, these are the only portions of Rule 4 relevant to this case.
 Although Hawkins also mentions Rule 4(a)(6), that section’s 180-day deadline
 applies only when a party asserts it did not receive the judgment, which is not the
 situation here.
                                             2
Appellate Case: 23-6084     Document: 010110958312        Date Filed: 11/27/2023    Page: 3

        But Hawkins filed neither a timely notice of appeal nor a timely extension

 motion. Instead, on March 24, 2023, he filed an untimely extension motion,

 explaining that he had failed to file a notice of appeal by mistake and because he had

 been ill. The district court reasoned that it lacked the authority to grant an untimely

 extension motion and denied it.

        Hawkins then filed a motion seeking relief from this denial under Rule

 60(b)(1), which permits a court to grant relief from a judgment because of “mistake,

 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” In support, Hawkins’s counsel

 explained in more detail that he had been ill and that he lacked experience with

 electronic filing. The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion, finding again that it

 lacked authority to grant Hawkins’s untimely extension motion and, in the

 alternative, determining that Hawkins failed to show excusable neglect sufficient to

 justify Rule 60(b)(1) relief.

        Hawkins now appeals.

                                         Analysis

        Hawkins challenges the district court’s denial of his Rule 60(b) motion. Our

 review is for abuse of discretion. See Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005,

 1009 (10th Cir. 2000).

        As he did below, Hawkins emphasizes various extenuating circumstances that

 he contends should excuse his untimely extension motion, including counsel’s illness

 and inexperience with electronic filing. But the deadline that Hawkins missed—

 failing to file his extension motion within 30 days of the expiration of the original

                                             3
Appellate Case: 23-6084     Document: 010110958312         Date Filed: 11/27/2023      Page: 4

 time to file a notice of appeal—derives from a federal statute and thus carries

 jurisdictional status. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 583 U.S. 17,

 25 (2017) (“If a time prescription governing the transfer of adjudicatory authority

 from one Article III court to another appears in a statute, the limitation is

 jurisdictional . . . .”). And critically, “[f]ailure to comply with a jurisdictional time

 prescription . . . deprives a court of adjudicatory authority over the case.” 3 Id. at 20.

        So the district court correctly ruled that it lacked authority to grant Hawkins’s

 untimely extension motion, no matter the reason for the untimeliness. See Alva, 469

 F.3d at 950 (declining to extend time to file notice of appeal based on excusable

 neglect because under § 2107(c), “[o]nly the district court may do so and only under

 limited circumstances and for a limited time” (emphasis added)); Eagle v. Freeport-

 McMoRan, Inc., No. 18-2178, 2019 WL 13219817, at *2 (10th Cir. Jan. 28, 2019)

 (stating that “district court lacks authority to grant” untimely motion for extension of

 time to appeal). 4 It accordingly did not abuse its discretion in denying Hawkins’s

 Rule 60(b) motion. 5

        3
          Hawkins suggests for the first time in his reply brief that this deadline is not
 jurisdictional. We typically decline to consider such belated arguments. See Reedy v.
 Werholtz, 660 F.3d 1270, 1274 (10th Cir. 2011). Moreover, the cases he cites in
 support either do not stand for the propositions he says they do or simply have no
 relevance here. See, e.g., United States v. Cos, 498 F.3d 1115, 1123 (10th Cir. 2007)
 (analyzing language in two orders to determine which was final and therefore
 triggered the 30-day period for appealing; reasoning that Supreme Court precedent
 about jurisdictional nature of certain appeal deadlines in civil cases was not relevant).
        4
          Though unpublished, we find Eagle persuasive. See Fed. R. App. P. 32.1(a);
 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A).
        5
          Given this ruling, we need not reach any arguments about whether the district
 court abused its discretion in finding that Hawkins failed to show excusable neglect
                                              4
Appellate Case: 23-6084    Document: 010110958312       Date Filed: 11/27/2023       Page: 5

                                      Conclusion

       Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm the district court’s denial of Rule

 60(b)(1) relief on the basis that it lacked authority to grant Hawkins’s untimely

 extension motion.

                                            Entered for the Court

                                            Nancy L. Moritz
                                            Circuit Judge

 sufficient to justify Rule 60(b)(1) relief. But we pause to note that the cases Hawkins
 cites to support his proposition that we have “favored granting leniency where
 counsel errs but does so under somewhat understandable circumstances” are plainly
 distinguishable. Aplt. Br. 7; see also Washington v. Ryan, 833 F.3d 1087, 1088–89
 (9th Cir. 2016) (allowing death-penalty habeas appeal to proceed despite notice of
 appeal being one day late); Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 852, 856–57 (10th Cir.
 2005) (remanding for reconsideration of excusable neglect under correct Rule
 60(b)(1) standards where judgment of zero damages was result of attorney arriving
 20 minutes late to hearing).
                                            5