Guy Heide, et al v. Calvin L. Scovel, et al, No. 09-1173 (8th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case. Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as plaintiffs' untimely Rule 59(e) motion did not toll the time for filing the notice of appeal; order denying the untimely motion was nullity and could not be appealed.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ___________ No. 09-1173 ___________ Guy Heide; Michael A. Kosel; Duane Taylor, * * * Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Calvin L. Scovel, Office of the * Inspector General, U.S. Department of * [UNPUBLISHED] Transportation; Craig S. Singleton, * Office of the Inspector General, U.S. * Department of Transportation, * * Appellees. * ___________ Submitted: December 3, 2009 Filed: December 8, 2009 ___________ Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ___________ PER CURIAM. Guy Heide, Michael Kosel, and Duane Taylor (plaintiffs) appeal following the district court s1 order dismissing their civil action and the court s denial of their postjudgment motion. We conclude that plaintiffs Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter 1 The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. or amend the judgment was filed more than ten days after the district court s entry of judgment, and therefore did not toll the time for filing the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A) (stating as relevant that time to appeal runs from disposition of timely Rule 59(e) motion or from Rule 60 motion filed within 10 days of entry of judgment); cf. Sanders v. Clemco Indus., 862 F.2d 161, 169 (8th Cir. 1988) (motion for reconsideration filed more than 10 days following entry of judgment does not toll time for appeal). Thus, plaintiffs January 9, 2009 notice of appeal was timely only as to the November 10, 2008 order denying the motion to reopen, but not as to the underlying October 2, 2008 judgment. See Fed. R. App. 4(a)(1)(A) (notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry of judgment or order from which appeal is taken). Because, however, the Rule 59(e) motion was untimely, the district court s November 10, 2008 order denying the motion was a nullity, and this court lacks jurisdiction to review that order. See Sanders, 862 F.2d at 168 (if motion characterized as Rule 59(e) motion is untimely made, court loses jurisdiction over motion and any ruling on it becomes nullity); see also Arnold v. Wood, 238 F.3d 992, 998 (8th Cir. 2001) (this court lacked jurisdiction to review district court s decision on untimely Rule 59(e) motion). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denying all pending motions as moot. See Huggins v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc,, 566 F.3d 771, 773 (8th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts are obligated to consider sua sponte jurisdictional issues where it appears jurisdiction is lacking). ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
