Opinion
21-1430
01-14-2022
LEWIS E. ERSKINE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. THE WARDEN OF THE ARKANSAS VALLEY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents - Appellees.
(D.C. No. 1:20-CV-00679-LTB-GPG) (D. Colo.)
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BACHARACH, and MORITZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
On December 14, 2021, the court entered a jurisdictional show cause order directing Appellant Lewis E. Erskine to file a memorandum brief explaining in detail why this court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal that appears to be untimely. This matter is before the court on Mr. Erskine's response. Upon consideration of the response, the district court's docket, and the applicable law, this appeal is dismissed for lack for jurisdiction for the reasons set forth below.
Mr. Erskine appeals the district court's order and judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application as untimely. However, "[t]his Court can exercise jurisdiction only if a notice of appeal is timely filed." Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir. 2006). Mr. Erskine's pro se status does not affect this rule. See Mayfield v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 647 F.2d 1053, 1055 (10th Cir. 1981) (dismissing pro se appeal filed three days late).
In a civil case like this one, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of the order or judgment being appealed. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). This court has no authority to make equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 216 (2007).
Here, the district court entered its final judgment on September 8, 2020. Mr. Erskine filed a notice of appeal more than a year later, on December 8, 2021. Because Mr. Erskine did not timely file a notice of appeal, the court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. Mr. Erskine's arguments in response to this court's jurisdictional challenge do not persuade the court otherwise.
APPEAL DISMISSED.