ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Mr. Meadows, a pro se litigant, appears before us now1 concerning alleged consti*117tutional violations arising from his 1999 conviction, in Oklahoma state court, for driving under the influence of alcohol. We find certain aspects of Mr. Meadows’s appeal untimely and others barred by Rooker-Feldman. Accordingly, we dismiss his appeal, and we also find it appropriate, as did the district court, to deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
* * *
Mr. Meadows was convicted in Oklahoma City Municipal Court of driving under the influence of alcohol in January 1999. Eight years later, in March 2007, he filed in the Western District of Oklahoma what he labeled a “Motion for Leave to File Motion to Vacate Judgment Out of Time,” asking the federal district court, in substance, to vacate his 1999 state court conviction.2 Mr. Meadows alleged that newly discovered evidence — the results of blood tests showing no alcohol in his system — was illegally withheld at the time of his trial. This evidence, he said, proved that he was innocent of the crime charged. He alleged due process violations and asked that he be allowed to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere and that the judgment and sentence be vacated.
The district court dismissed Mr. Meadows’s action. The court reasoned that Mr. Meadows’s attempt to vacate his municipal court conviction constituted “a collateral attack on, and/or an appeal of, the final judgment arising from that conviction,” and that, as such, it was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibiting federal suits appealing state court judgments.
Mr. Meadows moved to reconsider, again charging that the state trial court violated his due process rights and adding that he received ineffective legal assistance. The district court declined to reconsider its ruling, and Mr. Meadows appealed. The district court subsequently denied Mr. Meadows’s application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.
* * *
We construe Mr. Meadows’s pro se filings liberally. Erickson v. Pardus, - U.S. -, -, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007); Van Deelen v. Johnson, 497 F.3d 1151, 1153 n. 1 (10th Cir.2007). Accordingly, we credit Mr. Meadows with appealing both the dismissal of (1) his lawsuit and (2) his subsequent motion to reconsider. Mr. Meadows also (3) renews his request to proceed in forma pauperis. We address each of Mr. Meadows’s submissions in turn.
1. We cannot help but find Mr. Meadows’s appeal of the dismissal of his lawsuit to be untimely. Mr. Meadows’s Motion to Reconsider was not filed until 29 days after the initial judgment, and his notice of appeal was not filed until 67 days after the initial judgment. Generally, Mr. Meadows would have had only 30 days to file the notice of appeal, in order to timely appeal dismissal of the underlying motion. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). To be sure, it was possible for him to toll that time period by filing a motion to reconsider, id. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi), but in order for that motion to have tolled the 30-day window, Mr. Meadows would have had to file it within 10 days of the initial judgment. See id.; Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). This he simply did not do. While we construe pro se pleadings with special *118solicitude, under our precedents Mr. Meadows’s pro se status may not excuse his obligation to comply with the fundamental requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure, including filing a timely notice of appeal. See Ogden v. San Juan County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir.1994); Senjuro v. Murray, 943 F.2d 36, 38 (10th Cir.1991) (per curiam). Filing a timely notice of appeal is both mandatory and jurisdictional. Allender v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 439 F.3d 1236, 1239 (10th Cir.2006). As such, we find ourselves compelled to dismiss Mr. Meadows’s appeal of the underlying motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Senjuro, 943 F.2d at 38.
2. While Mr. Meadows’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his motion to reconsider was timely filed, that document still seeks, in essence, to overturn a conviction from the Oklahoma City Municipal Court system. This amounts, as the district court found, to an appeal from, or collateral attack on, the state court’s judgment, and it is not allowed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Bolden v. City of Topeka, Kan., 441 F.3d 1129, 1139 (10th Cir.2006) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits federal suits that amount to appeals of state-court judgments.”). Rooker-Feldman is a jurisdictional limit on federal district and appellate courts, and it prohibits us from reviewing state court decisions. See Wright, Miller & Cooper, 18B Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 4469.1 (“The general statutes that establish original federal subject-matter jurisdiction in the district courts do not extend to an ‘appeal’ from a state-court judgment.”). Accordingly, we have no choice but to dismiss Mr. Meadows’s appeal of the district court’s ruling on his motion to reconsider for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Mann v. Boat-right, 477 F.3d 1140, 1145-46 (10th Cir.2007) (affirming that the proper remedy for claims brought in contravention of Rooker-Feldman is dismissal for lack of jurisdiction).
3. Finally, we deny Mr. Meadows’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. In doing the same, the district court certified that Mr. Meadows’s appeal was not taken in good faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Given the complete lack of legal authority to sustain his appeal, we are forced to agree.
* * *
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment dismissing the motion to reconsider, and we deny Mr. Meadows’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.