Opinion
22-1242
11-17-2022
EYOEL-DAWIT MATIOS, et al., in sui juris capacity, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF LOVELAND, et al., in care of Stephen C. Adams, City Manager, Defendant-Appellee.
D.C. No. 1:21-CV-02194-WJM-NRN (D. Colo.)
Before TYMKOVICH, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Appellant Eyoel-Dawit Matios seeks appellate review of an order the United States District Court for the District of Colorado entered at this court's instruction following remand of Appellant's previous appeal, Matios v. City of Loveland, No. 221047 (July 14, 2022). This matter is before the court on: (1) the jurisdictional show cause order it issued on October 19, 2022; and (2) Appellant's response to that order, which includes a request to vacate the show cause order. Upon consideration, the court dismisses the appeal for the reasons set forth below.
In the case underlying this appeal, Appellant sought confirmation of an arbitration award purportedly issued in his favor against the City of Loveland. The district court denied with petition with prejudice, and Appellant appealed. This court held that there was no federal subject-matter jurisdiction to grant or deny the petition, so it vacated the district court's order and remanded the matter with instructions that the district court dismiss the petition without prejudice. Matios v. City of Loveland, No. 22-1047 (July 14, 2022).
Upon remand, the district court vacated its prior order and judgment, entered an order dismissing Appellant's petition without prejudice, and entered a new judgment. Appellant again appealed.
"It is a fundamental or rudimentary principle of our judicial system that once an appellate court issues a mandate to a district court to dismiss an action for lack of jurisdiction, the district court does not have jurisdiction to recall or otherwise void our mandate or to reconsider the merits of an action. To argue otherwise is simply frivolous." See United States v. Graham, 394 Fed.Appx. 479, 481 (10th Cir. 2010) (unpublished).
On remand, the district court did nothing more than this court had instructed it to do in its July 14, 2022 order. In essence, then, Appellant's current appeal asks this court to reconsider the July 14, 2022 order, although the time for any such request has passed, and a second appeal is not the appropriate procedure through which to make such a request. See Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1). Appellant may not reassert in a second appeal issues this court expressly addressed in his first. See Graham, 394 Fed.Appx. at 480-81 .
APPEAL DISMISSED. All pending motions or other requests are denied as moot.