Appellate Case: 22-1413 Document: 010111015806 Date Filed: 03/14/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 14, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court DOUGLAS BRUCE, an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 22-1413 (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-02427-RMR-MDB) CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, a (D. Colo.) municipal government within the State of Colorado; PIKES PEAK REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT, an intergovernmental agency within the State of Colorado; ROGER LOVELL, in his official capacity as the Director of the Pikes Peak Regional Building Department; EL PASO COUNTY, a municipal government within the State of Colorado; MARK LOWDERMAN, in his official capacity as the El Paso County Public Trustee,
Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________
Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.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. Appellate Case: 22-1413 Document: 010111015806 Date Filed: 03/14/2024 Page: 2
Douglas Bruce appeals from a district court order denying his motion to extend
the time to file a notice of appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Bruce brought the underlying case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after the
defendants demolished a building on his property and attached a lien for the
demolition costs. The district court granted the defendants’ joint motions to dismiss
and entered final judgment on September 27, 2022. Mr. Bruce then had thirty days to
file his notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). The
thirtieth day was October 27, 2022. Mr. Bruce filed his notice of appeal on October
28, one day late.
That same day, he also moved to extend the notice of appeal deadline, arguing
he missed the deadline due to excusable neglect. Mr. Bruce explained counsel was
unaware he had failed to complete the filing process through the district court’s
electronic filing system and mistakenly believed he timely noticed the appeal days
earlier, on October 21. The defendants opposed the requested relief.
On November 2, 2022, the district court denied Mr. Bruce’s motion and found
his notice of appeal ineffective. Mr. Bruce then filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss
his appeal, which we granted. See Bruce v. City of Colo. Springs, No. 22-1379, 2022
2 Appellate Case: 22-1413 Document: 010111015806 Date Filed: 03/14/2024 Page: 3
WL 19693444, at *1 (10th Cir. Nov. 22, 2022). The instant appeal—challenging the
district court’s refusal to extend the filing deadline—followed.1
II. DISCUSSION
A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case.
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The requirement cannot be forfeited or
waived; in other words, we cannot hear an appeal if the notice of appeal is filed after
the deadline. See id. at 213; Alva v. Teen Help, 469 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir. 2006).
But the district court can extend the time for a party to file a notice of appeal if “that
party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii).
We review the district court’s refusal to extend the notice of appeal filing
deadline for abuse of discretion. Bishop v. Corsentino, 371 F.3d 1203, 1206
(10th Cir. 2004). Under this standard, we will not disturb the district court’s decision
unless we have “a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error
of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “An error of law is per se an abuse of
discretion.” United States v. Lopez-Avila, 665 F.3d 1216, 1219 (10th Cir. 2011).
Mr. Bruce asserted only excusable neglect as grounds to extend the notice of
appeal deadline; he did not make an argument that good cause also warranted relief.
1 We ordered the parties to brief whether the dismissal of the underlying merits appeal means there is no longer an “actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Audubon of Kan., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 67 F.4th 1093, 1102 (10th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, because we affirm the district court, we need not address the voluntary dismissal of the underlying merits appeal. 3 Appellate Case: 22-1413 Document: 010111015806 Date Filed: 03/14/2024 Page: 4
See Aplt. App. at 76 (“Admittedly the reason for the delay was within the reasonable
control of counsel for Mr. Bruce.”).2 We thus limit our analysis to the argument
Mr. Bruce made in district court.
Courts should not extend the notice of appeal deadline for excusable neglect
absent unique and extraordinary circumstances. Bishop, 371 F.3d at 1206–07. To
that end, relevant factors include (1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party;
(2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the
reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the
movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Id. at 1206.
Mr. Bruce contends the district court abused its discretion by rejecting his
excusable neglect argument. He contends the district court mistakenly relied on case
law finding that a lawyer’s mistake in calculating a deadline or misunderstanding the
filing rules did not constitute excusable neglect. Unlike those cases, the record here
shows a different kind of mistake that Mr. Bruce insists is excusable neglect. As
Mr. Bruce explains, “counsel made an error in operating the electronic filing system
and mistakenly believed” he actually filed the notice of appeal several days before
the deadline. Aplt. Opening Br. at 11.
After carefully examining the record on appeal, we conclude the district court
acted well within its discretion in rejecting Mr. Bruce’s excusable neglect argument.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Appellate Case: 22-1413 Document: 010111015806 Date Filed: 03/14/2024 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT March 14, 2024 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court DOUGLAS BRUCE, an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. No. 22-1413 (D.C. No. 1:21-CV-02427-RMR-MDB) CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, a (D. Colo.) municipal government within the State of Colorado; PIKES PEAK REGIONAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT, an intergovernmental agency within the State of Colorado; ROGER LOVELL, in his official capacity as the Director of the Pikes Peak Regional Building Department; EL PASO COUNTY, a municipal government within the State of Colorado; MARK LOWDERMAN, in his official capacity as the El Paso County Public Trustee,
Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _________________________________
Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. _________________________________
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment 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. Appellate Case: 22-1413 Document: 010111015806 Date Filed: 03/14/2024 Page: 2
Douglas Bruce appeals from a district court order denying his motion to extend
the time to file a notice of appeal. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291,
we affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
Mr. Bruce brought the underlying case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after the
defendants demolished a building on his property and attached a lien for the
demolition costs. The district court granted the defendants’ joint motions to dismiss
and entered final judgment on September 27, 2022. Mr. Bruce then had thirty days to
file his notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). The
thirtieth day was October 27, 2022. Mr. Bruce filed his notice of appeal on October
28, one day late.
That same day, he also moved to extend the notice of appeal deadline, arguing
he missed the deadline due to excusable neglect. Mr. Bruce explained counsel was
unaware he had failed to complete the filing process through the district court’s
electronic filing system and mistakenly believed he timely noticed the appeal days
earlier, on October 21. The defendants opposed the requested relief.
On November 2, 2022, the district court denied Mr. Bruce’s motion and found
his notice of appeal ineffective. Mr. Bruce then filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss
his appeal, which we granted. See Bruce v. City of Colo. Springs, No. 22-1379, 2022
2 Appellate Case: 22-1413 Document: 010111015806 Date Filed: 03/14/2024 Page: 3
WL 19693444, at *1 (10th Cir. Nov. 22, 2022). The instant appeal—challenging the
district court’s refusal to extend the filing deadline—followed.1
II. DISCUSSION
A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case.
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The requirement cannot be forfeited or
waived; in other words, we cannot hear an appeal if the notice of appeal is filed after
the deadline. See id. at 213; Alva v. Teen Help, 469 F.3d 946, 950 (10th Cir. 2006).
But the district court can extend the time for a party to file a notice of appeal if “that
party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii).
We review the district court’s refusal to extend the notice of appeal filing
deadline for abuse of discretion. Bishop v. Corsentino, 371 F.3d 1203, 1206
(10th Cir. 2004). Under this standard, we will not disturb the district court’s decision
unless we have “a definite and firm conviction that the lower court made a clear error
of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible choice in the circumstances.”
Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “An error of law is per se an abuse of
discretion.” United States v. Lopez-Avila, 665 F.3d 1216, 1219 (10th Cir. 2011).
Mr. Bruce asserted only excusable neglect as grounds to extend the notice of
appeal deadline; he did not make an argument that good cause also warranted relief.
1 We ordered the parties to brief whether the dismissal of the underlying merits appeal means there is no longer an “actual injury that can be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Audubon of Kan., Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 67 F.4th 1093, 1102 (10th Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, because we affirm the district court, we need not address the voluntary dismissal of the underlying merits appeal. 3 Appellate Case: 22-1413 Document: 010111015806 Date Filed: 03/14/2024 Page: 4
See Aplt. App. at 76 (“Admittedly the reason for the delay was within the reasonable
control of counsel for Mr. Bruce.”).2 We thus limit our analysis to the argument
Mr. Bruce made in district court.
Courts should not extend the notice of appeal deadline for excusable neglect
absent unique and extraordinary circumstances. Bishop, 371 F.3d at 1206–07. To
that end, relevant factors include (1) the danger of prejudice to the nonmoving party;
(2) the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the
reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the
movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Id. at 1206.
Mr. Bruce contends the district court abused its discretion by rejecting his
excusable neglect argument. He contends the district court mistakenly relied on case
law finding that a lawyer’s mistake in calculating a deadline or misunderstanding the
filing rules did not constitute excusable neglect. Unlike those cases, the record here
shows a different kind of mistake that Mr. Bruce insists is excusable neglect. As
Mr. Bruce explains, “counsel made an error in operating the electronic filing system
and mistakenly believed” he actually filed the notice of appeal several days before
the deadline. Aplt. Opening Br. at 11.
After carefully examining the record on appeal, we conclude the district court
acted well within its discretion in rejecting Mr. Bruce’s excusable neglect argument.
2 Good cause “comes into play in situations in which there is no fault— excusable or otherwise. In such situations, the need for an extension is usually occasioned by something that is not within the control of the movant.” Bishop, 371 F.3d at 1207 (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 Appellate Case: 22-1413 Document: 010111015806 Date Filed: 03/14/2024 Page: 5
Although we agree that counsel’s reason for missing the deadline in this case is
factually distinguishable from miscalculating a deadline or misunderstanding the
filing rules, this is a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Counsel’s reason for missing the deadline is “perhaps the most important
single factor . . . in determining whether neglect is excusable.” City of Chanute v.
Williams Nat. Gas Co., 31 F.3d 1041, 1046 (10th Cir. 1994). The reason for
Mr. Bruce’s filing delay was his counsel’s inadvertence. And we have long
recognized that inadvertence rarely constitutes excusable neglect. See United States
v. Torres, 372 F.3d 1159, 1163 (10th Cir. 2004). Importantly, Mr. Bruce failed to
provide the district court with his counsel’s reason for missing the deadline. The first
time he explained the circumstances that caused his counsel’s inadvertence was in his
reply brief on appeal.3 We do not doubt the challenging circumstances facing
Mr. Bruce’s counsel, but on the basis of the record and arguments before us, we
cannot say the district court abused its discretion by refusing to extend the deadline
for filing a notice of appeal.4
3 See Aplt. Reply Br. at 3–4 (explaining Mr. Bruce’s counsel had recently returned to a full email inbox and many other pending matters that had accumulated after he “missed a significant period of time to care for his son who had come down with his second bout of COVID,” and he “neglected to check for the filing confirmation” for the notice of appeal). 4 Finally, we need not address the impact of the voluntary dismissal of the underlying merits appeal because we affirm the district court’s denial of the motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
5 Appellate Case: 22-1413 Document: 010111015806 Date Filed: 03/14/2024 Page: 6
III. CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court’s order denying Mr. Bruce’s motion for an
extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
Entered for the Court
Veronica S. Rossman Circuit Judge