Opinion
21-3040
07-12-2021
MANETIRONY CLERVRAIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants - Appellees.
(D.C. No. 5:17-CV-03194-SAC) (D. Kan.)
Before MATHESON, BRISCOE, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.
ORDER [*]
MARY BECK BRISCOE, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Plaintiff-Appellant Manetirony Clervrain, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's summary denial of various motions after judgment was entered by the district court. Because we conclude that Clervrain's appeal is untimely filed and seeks review of rulings beyond our jurisdiction, we dismiss this appeal.
Clervrain filed this suit in the District of Kansas in October 2017, seeking information from the Bureau of Prisons ("BOP") under the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"). ROA, Vol. 1 at 14-28. Clervrain identified himself as an activist seeking to end the "apartheid" of non-citizen prisoners in BOP custody, and sent three FOIA requests to BOP, which the BOP aggregated. ROA, Vol. 2 at 8-9. The BOP also informed Clervrain that "he must make advance payment of the anticipated fee amount ($308.50) prior to the processing of his request." Id. at 9. In a September 2018 order, the district court dismissed Clervrain's suit, finding (1) that Clervrain failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, (2) that the BOP was justified in denying Clervrain's request for a FOIA fee waiver, and (3) that the BOP properly aggregated Clervrain's three FOIA requests. Id. at 8-14. Clervrain appealed the dismissal to this court in Case Number 18-3216, but we abated that appeal while the district court resolved thirty-five additional motions Clervrain had filed after his case was dismissed. We ordered Clervrain to pay the filing fee in his appellate case, but when he failed to do so we dismissed his appeal for lack of prosecution on June 12, 2019. ROA, Vol. 2 at 445-46. Clervrain petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court, but his request was denied in April 2020. Id. at 450.
In November 2020, more than two years after the district court had entered a final judgment in this action, Clervrain filed three additional motions. ROA, Vol. 2 at 451-67 (Clervrain's "Motion for Compelling Needs for Judicial Record for Amending Controversy by Unjust Classification Prohibition Act" and "Motion for ['Introduction Clause'] within Reason(s) or Appeals Judicial Records by 'The ANTS' Fear Liability Act, 'TAFLA'"). The district court noted that it had previously "warned Plaintiff that any additional motions he filed in this case, which has been dismissed here, dismissed by the Tenth Circuit, and denied certiorari, would be subject to summary denial." Id. at 467. Accordingly, the district court summarily denied Clervrain's motions on February 26, 2021. Id. at 467. Clervrain subsequently filed this appeal.
After reviewing Clervrain's opening brief, we dismiss his appeal as time-barred. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure require, in cases such as this one where one of the parties is the United States, 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 two years 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)).
In addition, Clervrain's opening brief references pending suits in other districts, Aplt. Br. at 1 (referencing cases filed by Clervrain in the Eastern District of Texas and the Southern District of Florida), and we note that we lack jurisdiction to review any appeals stemming from rulings of district courts located beyond the geographic boundaries of the Tenth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 41 (defining the composition of the Tenth Circuit as "Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming."); 28 U.S.C. § 1294(1) (explaining that appeals should be taken "[f]rom a district court of the United States to the court of appeals for the circuit embracing the district").
For the foregoing reasons, Clervrain's appeal is DISMISSED. We DENY any additional pending motions that Clervrain has filed, including his June 14, 2021 motion for prompt notice, his June 1, 2021 motion for judicial interventions, his May 20, 2021 motion, and his April 16, 2021 motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
[*] 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.