decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

The Appeals Court for the 10th Circuit Sends a Letter of Instructions
Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 05:29 PM EDT

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Office of the Clerk, has sent a letter reminding the individual wishing to appeal the order denying him the right to intervene in the SCO v. Novell case that there is a $450 fee to be paid to the US District Court within 30 days, or an application filed to proceed in forma pauperis, and giving futher instructions on how to avoid having the appeal tossed. They've seen this before, I expect, and likely they have a form letter. Here's the docket entry:
08/06/2008 547 - USCA Case Number Case Appealed to Tenth Case Number 08-4154 for 545 Notice of Appeal filed by Jonathan Lee Riches. (jmr) (Entered: 08/06/2008)

In the interests of time, I'll leave off the header and skip to the meat, because I know some of you are interested in how the appeals process works, and this is part of the answer:


[address, phone, clerks]

August 06, 2008


The court has docketed the appeal in this case.

Attorneys for parties must complete and file an entry of appearance form within 10 days from the date of this letter. Pro se parties must complete and file the form within 30 days from the date of this letter. See 10th Cir. R. 46.1. Appellant's failure to enter an appearance may cause the appeal to be dismissed. An appellee who fails to enter an appearance may cause the appeal to be dismissed. An appellee who fails to enter an appearance may not receive notice or service of orders.

Prisoners must pay the full amount of the filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(b)(1). The court must assess, and have the warden collect, partial filing fees. There are other requirements of prisoners under the act. They include providing a certified copy of the prisoner's trust fund statement for the preceding six months, and consenting to the collection of the funds from the prisoner's account by the custodian.

Prisoners are reminded that to invoke the prison mailbox rule they must immediately file a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1746 or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of the deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) and United States v. Ceballos-Martinez, 358 F. 3e 732 (2004), revised and superseded, 371 F. 3d 713 (10th Cir. 2004), reh'g denied en banc, 387 F. 3d 1140 (10th Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S. Ct. 624, (U.S. Nov 29, 2004).

The $5.00 filing fee and $450.00 docket fee were not paid to the district clerk when the notice of appeal was filed as required by Fed. R. App. P. 3(e). Unless the fees are paid to the district clerk or an application for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees is made to the district court, within 30 days of the date of this letter, this appeal may be dismissed without further notice. See 10th Cir. R. 3.3(B).

Please contact this office if you have questions.


Clerk of the Court

cc: Brent O. Hatch
David E. Melaugh



The Appeals Court for the 10th Circuit Sends a Letter of Instructions | 172 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Authored by: gakulev on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 05:35 PM EDT
futher --> further


May the source be with you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: bbaston on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 05:48 PM EDT
Off topic threads here.

imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Appeals Court for the 10th Circuit Sends a Letter of Instructions
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 05:49 PM EDT

This reads like "Oh, you again. Right, we'll just be following procedures to the letter then, and we're not required to warn you if you've made a mistake. Oh, and just to make sure you can't say you didn't know, here's all the procedures you'll have to follow and all the hoops you'll have to jump through. Thank you have a nice day NEXT!" :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: bbaston on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 05:50 PM EDT
Comments on articles put in the News Picks column (right side of Home page).

imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Appeals Court for the 10th Circuit Sends a Letter of Instructions
Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 06:01 PM EDT
I was just thinking...

(Yes, I know, "Always a dangerous thing.")

...Boise Schiller has been paid to go through the motions right up through the
appeals process. If they do not go through the appeals, then presumably (unless
there's disgorgement) they get to keep these fees.

Can we donate the appeal fee, if it's only $400, and force Boise Schiller to
actually go through with the work on the appeal? And will they then be forced
to disgorge all those fees anyways? Would that be punishment on BSF, or am I
just overthinking the issue?

[ Reply to This | # ]

The sad part about Riches!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 06:35 PM EDT

He appears to have never read the story:

    The boy who cried wolf!
If he keeps up this pattern with all the courts, eventually no court will accept his case without some serious attorney examination into it's validity.

I gathered from the stories that he's reasonably young and still has quite a bit of life outside his jail time to live. If he's ever in a position where he needs the court to actually take on a case "In Forma Pauperis" he may very well end up wishing he'd never played at this little game of his.

What's sad about that is basically his willingness to deliberately harm his own future. I've always found it a bit sad when someone rebels for no reason and the only thing they ever truly accomplish is harming themselves.


[ Reply to This | # ]

In Forma Pauperis
Authored by: papafox on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 07:47 PM EDT

The Devil's Dictionary has a nice definition of Forma Pauperis:

Forma Pauperis
    [Latin] In the character of a poor person — a method by which a litigant without money for lawyers is considerately permitted to lose his case.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How much does $450 buy you?
Authored by: jpvlsmv on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 08:56 PM EDT
When you're talking about paying a lawyer. Or rather, when you're talking about
preliminary bills to a bankrupt company?

I wonder how much SCO's various legal teams will be able to suck out from under
the bankruptcy court for receiving this mail.

I figure it's gotta take at least a couple of hour to open the envelope and read
all those pages of the docket, not to mention the dozens of conference calls to
make sure that the right strategies are in place for the next reorganization
plan, in light of this new "interested party"...


[ Reply to This | # ]

The Appeals Court for the 10th Circuit Sends a Letter of Instructions
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, August 06 2008 @ 10:27 PM EDT
This is a biolerplate letter. The clerk gets many appeals and many appeals from
the incarcerated. Prisoner litigants get some breaks. It is not unusual for
courts to send them instructions and warnings as they grant them extensions, or
give them second chances or another deadline. THey do this despite knowing the
overwhelming number of such suits are eventually dismissed or abandoned. Often
they are manifestly frivolous or without merit. Everyone knows what is going to
happen, but it plays out. The very rare case succeeds and the courts want to be
humane. The biggest disadvantage is not having a lawyer. That alone says a lot
about the value of the case.

There are laws that give those in jail some advantages to make up for their
difficult state. In some jurisdictions the time in jail tolls the statute of
limitations. An inmate can sue someone years after an event and the normal SOL
if the SOL did not exceed his free time.


"The earth is my treadmill."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Will SCO pay for the Jonathan Lee Riches appeal?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 12:30 PM EDT
Any chance that Jonathan Lee Riches can cause a delay in the proceedings? If
so, I can see SCO paying the fee.

To paraphrase Ghostbusters: SCO: No delay too small. No lawyer's fee too big.

[ Reply to This | # ]

In forma pauperis?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, August 07 2008 @ 04:38 PM EDT
Who wants to bet that he'll actually file the in forma pauperis application
while managing to accuse cheese, the Virgin Mary, Quantum Mechanics, Fred
Astere, Methodism, Onanism, Absurdism, the color purple, and various electronics
manufacturers of conspiracy against him?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )