Muniz v. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.
USCA ORDER as to Edward Muniz. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. USCA case no. 09-1547. (bjr, )
Date Filed: 02/08/2010 FILED 1 Page: U n i t ed States Court of Appeals T e n t h Circuit
U N I T E D STATES CO U R T O F APPEALS E l i s a b e t h A. Shumaker F O R TH E TENTH CIRCUIT C l e r k of Court
F e b r u a r y 8, 2010
I n re: EDW A R D M U N I Z , P etitio n er.
N o . 09-1547 ( D . C . No. 1:07-CV-01914-M S K - M J W ) ( D . Colo.)
B e f o r e TA C H A , BR I S C O E , and M U R P H Y , Circuit Judges.
E d w a r d M u n i z has filed a petition for a w r i t of mandamus asking this court t o direct the district court to rule on his pending motion to alter the judgment, and h i s pending motion for extension of time to file an appeal. M r . M u n i z asserts in h i s petition that "[i]n order to continue with my appeal these motions need to be a n s w e r e d . " Pet. at 1. Shortly before M r . M u n i z filed his mandamus petition, he filed his notice o f appeal. O n December 14, 2009, we dismissed M r . M u n i z ' s appeal as untimely. In the dismissal order, we noted that judgment was entered on August 14, 2009, a n d the notice of appeal was due on or before September 14, 2009. M r . M u n i z d i d not file his notice of appeal until December 4, 2009. Although he did file a m o t i o n to alter the judgment, that motion was untimely and therefore it did not t o l l the time for filing a notice of appeal. M r . M u n i z also filed a motion for
Date Filed: 02/08/2010
e x t e n s i o n of time to file his notice of appeal, but that motion was untimely b e c a u s e it was not filed within the thirty-day time period for filing a notice of a p p e a l . Because M r . M u n i z did not timely file his notice of appeal and there was n o basis to toll the time period for filing his appeal, we dismissed the appeal. W e n o t e d , however, that if and when the district court ruled on his pending p o s t - j u d g m e n t motion, he could appeal from that ruling, if he wished to do so. O n February 4, 2010, the district court denied as moot M r . M u n i z ' s motion f o r an extension of time to file an appeal. Although the district court has not r u l e d on his motion to alter the judgment, M r . M u n i z can no longer argue that he n e e d s the district court to rule on that motion in order to continue with his appeal b e c a u s e his appeal has been dismissed. M r . M u n i z is still free to file an appeal f r o m the district court's disposition of his post-judgment motion, once the court r u l e s on that motion. Accordingly, we D E N Y as moot M r . M u n i z ' s petition for a w r i t of mandamus, and we DENY M r . M u n i z ' s motion to proceed without p r e p a y m e n t of fees. M r . M u n i z is directed to pay the filing fee immediately.
Entered for the Court,
E L I S A B E T H A. SHUM A K E R , Clerk
Date Filed: 02/08/2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK
Byron White United States Courthouse 1823 Stout Street Denver, Colorado 80257 (303) 844-3157 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court
February 08, 2010
Douglas E. Cressler Chief Deputy Clerk
Edward Muniz AVCF - Arkansas Valley Correctional Facility P.O. Box 1000 Crowley, CO 81034 #120296 RE: 09-1547, In re: Muniz Dist/Ag docket: 1:07-CV-01914-MSK-MJW
Dear Mr. Muniz: Enclosed please find an order issued today by the court. Please contact this office if you have questions. Sincerely,
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of the Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?