Full Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-2092 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/28/2026 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT October 28, 2026 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court STACI-ALMEDA ECKSTEIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 25-2092 (D.C. No. 2:24-CV-01301-KWR-KRS) CITY OF CLOVIS; CITY OF CLOVIS (D. N.M.) MAYOR-MIKE MORRIS; CLOVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT; CITY OF CLOVIS POLICE CHIEF-ROY RICE; CURRY COUNTY; CURRY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; DETENTION CENTER ADMINISTRATOR-JOE ALANIZ; CURRY COUNTY MANAGER-LANCE A. PYLE; JUDGE STEPHEN R. WHITTINGTON; JUDGE JANEMARIE A. VANDER DUSSEN; D. RODRIGUEZ, Lt. #133; C. JAMIE, Lt. #159; OFFICER GARCIA; UNNAMED OFFICERS AND AGENTS, Defendants - Appellees. _________________________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT * _________________________________ Before HOLMES, Chief Judge, MORITZ and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges. _________________________________ After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined * unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 25-2092 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/28/2026 Page: 2 I. Staci-Almeda Eckstein was arrested and charged in municipal court following an altercation at her mother’s home in Clovis, New Mexico. She then sued the City of Clovis and various municipal officials and entities in federal district court, alleging they violated her civil rights. Eckstein also petitioned the district court for a writ of prohibition to halt the criminal proceedings against her. The district court denied the writ, explaining “it is a longstanding principle that federal courts may not enjoin state criminal proceedings” and Eckstein failed to show “a circumstance warranting relief from the state’s prosecution.” R. at 41 (citing Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 46 (1971)). The district court said Eckstein’s petition made “bareboned allegations about deprivation of due process” yet offered “nothing to support those allegations,” and did not allege facts suggesting bad faith, harassment, or serious and immediate irreparable injury. Id. And to the extent Eckstein made allegations about undue competency hearings and consultations with psychiatrists, the court held, they pertained to “routine court proceedings meant to protect a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights,” not extraordinary circumstances warranting federal court interference. Id. at 42. Invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Eckstein moved the district court to vacate its order denying the writ of prohibition. The district court denied the motion, noting that Rule 60(b) did not apply because a final judgment had not been entered, and, even if it did apply, Eckstein failed to address the district court’s reasons for denying the writ. 2 Appellate Case: 25-2092 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/28/2026 Page: 3 II. This court has an independent duty to ensure we have appellate jurisdiction. See Havens v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 897 F.3d 1250, 1259 (10th Cir. 2018). A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement in a civil case. Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). Eckstein filed a timely notice of appeal challenging the district court’s order denying the writ of prohibition. But she did not file a new or amended notice of appeal after the district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion. We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of that motion, and we do not consider Eckstein’s arguments targeting that denial. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii) (requiring a party to timely file a notice of appeal or amended notice of appeal to challenge an order disposing of a Rule 60 motion); Matney v. Barrick Gold of N. Am., 80 F.4th 1136, 1160 (10th Cir. 2023) (holding this court lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of post-judgment relief where appellant had not filed a new or amended notice of appeal to challenge that ruling). III. We liberally construe Eckstein’s pro se filings, see Yang v. Archuleta, 525 F.3d 925, 927 n.1 (10th Cir. 2008), and we typically excuse a pro se litigant’s inartful pleading and legal analysis, see Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991). But “[t]his court has repeatedly insisted that pro se parties follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 Appellate Case: 25-2092 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/28/2026 Page: 4 We have held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 “applies equally to pro se litigants.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 841 (10th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under that rule, an opening brief must contain the “appellant’s contentions and the reasons for them, with citations to the authorities and parts of the record on which the appellant relies.” Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). “Consistent with this requirement, we routinely have declined to consider arguments that are not raised, or are inadequately presented, in an appellant’s opening brief.” Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007). Without support or analysis, Eckstein contends the Younger abstention “does not apply where state proceedings are conducted in bad faith, for purposes of harassment, or where there is no adequate opportunity to raise constitutional claims.” Opening Br. at 5 (emphasis omitted). She also contends that she “alleged lack of jurisdiction, coercive procedures, and denial of meaningful process. The district court dismissed these claims as ‘barebones’ without analysis. This constitutes legal error.” Id. Eckstein does not argue that she provided factual support for her allegations or otherwise “explain what was wrong with the reasoning the district court relied on in reaching its decision.” See Nixon v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015). Her “perfunctory” allegations of error “fail to frame and develop an issue sufficient to invoke appellate review.” Murrell v. Shalala, 43 F.3d 1388, 1389 n.2 (10th Cir. 1994). 4 Appellate Case: 25-2092 Document: 31-1 Date Filed: 10/28/2026 Page: 5 IV. We affirm the district court’s order denying the writ of prohibition. Entered for the Court Nancy L. Moritz Circuit Judge 5