Clark v. City of Shawnee, 706 F. App'x 478

Background

In Dec. 2013 a Shawnee, Kansas police officer stopped Jonathan Clark’s vehicle and found two loaded, un-encased firearms; Jonathan was cited under a city ordinance requiring firearms in vehicles be unloaded and encased.
Jonathan (pro se) and his uncle Eric sued the City under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging Second and Fourth Amendment violations; Jonathan had been criminally cited and later convicted in municipal court (charge eventually dismissed by the City).
The district court granted summary judgment for the City and entered judgment on Jan. 5, 2017, awarding the City costs; the City later filed a bill of costs that erroneously included attorney’s fees.
The Clarks filed a post-judgment motion for review (Jan. 12, 2017) challenging costs and attorney’s fees (construed as a Rule 59(e) motion); the City admitted the attorney’s fees inclusion was improper and separately moved for fees.
The district court denied the Rule 59(e) motion on Jan. 20, 2017 and struck the attorney-fees line from the bill of costs; the Clarks then filed a Rule 52(b) motion for additional findings (Jan. 31, 2017), which the court denied on Feb. 22, 2017.
The Clarks filed a notice of appeal on Feb. 28, 2017 purporting to appeal the Jan. 5 judgment; the Tenth Circuit held the appeal untimely as to the final judgment and lacking jurisdiction to review the post-judgment orders because the notice did not properly designate the orders appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the appeal from the Jan. 5, 2017 final judgment was timely	Clarks argued their Jan. 31 Rule 52(b) motion tolled the appeal period, making the Feb. 28 notice timely	City argued the Rule 52(b) motion was successive and did not toll the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(4)	Appeal from Jan. 5 judgment untimely; no jurisdiction to review it
Whether the Jan. 31 Rule 52(b) motion could be treated as a timely notice of appeal	Clarks asked the court to construe the Rule 52(b) motion as a notice of appeal because it was filed within the appeal window	City argued the motion sought district-court relief and did not provide the Rule 3 notice required for appeal	Motion did not satisfy Rule 3; it did not indicate intent to appeal to court of appeals
Whether the notice of appeal properly designated the orders being appealed (Rule 3(c)(1)(B))	Clarks pointed to language referencing their post-judgment motion and tolling	City argued the notice explicitly identified the Jan. 5 judgment and docket numbers, not the denials of post-judgment motions	Notice showed intent to appeal Jan. 5 judgment only; did not sufficiently indicate appeal from denials of Rule 59(e)/52(b) motions
Whether the appeal from the denials of the post-judgment motions was timely and properly designated	Clarks timely appealed the denials (filed Feb. 28 within 30 days of Feb. 22 denial) and attempted to rely on liberal construction	City argued the notice still failed to designate those orders as appealed	The notice did not fairly indicate intent to appeal the denials; court lacked jurisdiction over those orders as well

Key Cases Cited

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (U.S. 2007) (timely filing of notice of appeal in civil case is jurisdictional)
Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1992) (a document filed within the appellate time that gives Rule 3 notice can be treated as a notice of appeal)
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2012) (jurisdictional character of certain appellate requirements)
Yost v. Stout, 607 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2010) (substance-over-label test: motions asking to alter judgment are Rule 59 motions regardless of caption)
Ysais v. Richardson, 603 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2010) (successive post-judgment motions do not extend time to appeal underlying judgment)
Williams v. Akers, 837 F.3d 1075 (10th Cir. 2016) (requirement to designate judgment/order in notice of appeal is jurisdictional but construed liberally)
United States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 733 (10th Cir. 1999) (discusses content required by Rule 3 for a valid notice of appeal)