Opinion
23-2016
02-15-2023
ERICA D. HAYWOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR; NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL; NEW MEXICO CORRECTIONS DEPT. DIRECTORS; QUAY COUNTY, NEW MEXICO SHERIFF; FNU ECCLES, Quay County New Mexico Sheriff Officer, Sgt; FNU BOGART, Quay County New Mexico Sheriff Officer, Sgt.; FNU ECCLES, Quay COunty New Mexico Sheriff Officer, Cpl.; FNU GARCIA, Transport officer, Defendants-Appellees.
D.C. No. 1:22-CV-00248-WJ-SCY (D. N.M.)
Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, BRISCOE, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Erica D. Haywood appeals the district court's order and final judgment dismissing her civil rights case. The notice of appeal was filed long after the filing deadline passed, however. Consequently, we conclude this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal and dismiss it. Amazon, Inc. v. Dirt Camp, Inc., 273 F.3d 1271, 1274 (10th Cir. 2001) ("[W]e have an independent duty to examine our own jurisdiction." (citation omitted)).
"This court can exercise jurisdiction only if a notice of appeal is timely filed. A timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional." Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). A notice of appeal in a civil case like this one must be filed within 30 days after the district court's judgment is entered. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Although the appellant is proceeding pro se, she must comply with the same procedural requirements that govern all litigants, including time limits on filing appeals. Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir. 2007); Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir. 1994).
In this case, the order and judgment being appealed were entered on July 8, 2022. To be timely, the notice of appeal should have been filed by August 8, 2022. See Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C) (when filing deadline falls on weekend day, due date moves to first day following that is not a weekend). The notice of appeal here was filed on February 13, 2023, 190 days after the filing deadline expired. Ms. Haywood did not attempt to obtain relief from her late appeal from the district court, and the time within which she could have done so has also expired. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) &4(a)(6). The United States Supreme Court has made clear this federal appellate court "has no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements." Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Therefore, "[t]he time limit has run and we are without jurisdiction under the facts of this case." Jenkins v. Burtzloff, 69 F.3d 460, 464 (10th Cir. 1995).
APPEAL DISMISSED.