The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
25-1669•Christopher L. Stewart v. Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, City and County of Denver, Colorado
25-1669Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSep 29, 2025
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CHRISTOPHER L. STEWART,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
ALFRED A. ARRAJ UNITED STATES
COURTHOUSE, CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER,
COLORADO,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2025-1669
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado in No. 1:22-cv-00031-LTB, Senior
Judge Lewis T. Babcock.
______________________
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
No party having filed a response to the court’s June 16,
2025 show cause order, we now dismiss.
Christopher L. Stewart filed this civil rights action in
the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
naming as defendants the Alfred A. Arraj United States
Courthouse and the city and county of Denver, Colorado.
The complaint sought, among other things, $25,000 “for
Case: 25-1669 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 09/29/2025
-- 1 of 2 --
STEWART v. ALFRED A. ARRAJ UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE 2
violation of 14th am[]endment and wrongful i[m]prison-
ment.” Dkt. No. 1 at 5. On January 24, 2022, the district
court issued an order construing Mr. Stewart’s filing of a
“motion to withdraw the original civil complaint without
prejudice,” Dkt. No. 5 at 1, as a notice of voluntary dismis-
sal and dismissed the action without prejudice. On April
15, 2025, Mr. Stewart filed a notice of appeal seeking re-
view in this court.
“[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case
is a jurisdictional requirement,” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S.
205, 214 (2007). Here, Mr. Stewart’s appeal from the dis-
trict court’s January 24, 2022 order is more than three
years late. For at least this reason, we and any other court
of appeals lack jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the ap-
peal.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The appeal is dismissed.
(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.
September 29, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-1669 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 09/29/2025
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.