Opinion
21-3041
07-12-2021
MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SARA M. REVELL, Defendant - Appellee.
(D.C. No. 5:18-CV-03166-SAC) (D. Kan.)
Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER [*]
MARY BECK BRISCOE, CIRCUIT JUDGE.
Plaintiff-Appellant Manetirony Clervrain brings this appeal, challenging the district court's denial of various motions filed by Clervrain after his case was dismissed. Because we conclude that Clervrain's appeal is untimely, we dismiss this appeal.
This appeal arises from a lawsuit Clervrain filed in the District of Kansas in July 2018. ROA, Vol. 1 at 8. At the time of the suit, Clervrain was an inmate at Big Spring Correctional Facility. Clervrain filed a 227-page civil rights complaint against defendant Sara Revell, the North Central Regional Director of the Bureau of Prisons. Id. at 8-235. Clervrain sought the closure of private prisons, the end of "apartheid" treatment of non-citizen prisoners, and compensatory and punitive damages. Id. The district court observed that the complaint "is virtually unintelligible and contains a dearth of factual allegations." Id. at 236. The district court entered a Memorandum and Order to Show Cause, ordering Clervrain to file an amended complaint. Clervrain failed to file an amended complaint, and the district court dismissed the complaint "because it violates Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to such an extent that it fails to state an actionable claim." Id. Clervrain appealed the district court's dismissal to the Tenth Circuit, but he failed to pay the appellate filing fee and we dismissed his appeal for lack of prosecution in July 2019. Id. at 251.
More than a year after his appeal was dismissed, Clervrain filed four motions in the district court, including a "Motion for Compelling Needs," id. at 255, a "Motion for Interlocutor Appeal," id. at 262, a "Motion for Consideration," id. at 274, and a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, ROA. Vol. 2 at 2. The district court observed that Clervrain's case was already closed, found that Clervrain's motions were inappropriate, and summarily denied them. ROA, Vol. 1 at 345. Clervrain filed a notice of appeal. Id. at 347.
After reviewing Clervrain's opening brief and the appellate record, we conclude that his appeal is untimely and dismiss his appeal. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require, in cases such as this one where one of the parties is a United States officer, that a notice of appeal be filed within 60 days after the entry of the judgment or order appealed from. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). The Supreme Court has held that "the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement." Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). But as discussed above, Clervrain's appeal was filed more than a year after the district court entered judgment dismissing his complaint. Although Clervrain had recently filed motions before the district court, those motions did not toll the time limits for filing an appeal. See Bunn v. Perdue, 966 F.3d 1094, 1100 n.14 (10th Cir. 2020) (explaining that "untimely post-judgment motions do not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal"). Accordingly, Clervrain's appeal in this case is time-barred and we lack jurisdiction to consider it.
We construe pro se filings liberally, but our caselaw has held that "[p]ro se status 'does not excuse the obligation of any litigant to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure.'" Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994)).
For the foregoing reasons, Clervrain's appeal is DISMISSED. We DENY any additional pending motions that Clervrain has filed.
[*] This order 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.