Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Stewart v. Alfred a. Arraj United States Courthouse, No. 25-1669 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2025)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 25-1669
Decided
September 29, 2025
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.

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 “for2 2 STEWART v. ALFRED A. ARRAJ UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE

violation of 14th am[]endment and wrongful i[m]prisonment.” 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 dismissal and dismissed the action without prejudice. On April 15, 2025, Mr. Stewart filed a notice of appeal seeking review 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 district 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 appeal. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

September 29, 2025 Date

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Stewart v. Alfred a. Arraj United States Courthouse, No. 25-1669 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2025).

Record ID
CAFC-25-1669-20250929
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-25-1669-20250929

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.