Alfredo Rosillo v. Matt Holten
817 F.3d 595
| 8th Cir. | 2016Background
- Rosillo sued APD Officer Matt Holten and Mower County Deputy Jeff Ellis under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for excessive force during his arrest.
- District court granted summary judgment in favor of Holten on December 23, 2014, effectively dismissing Rosillo’s claim against Holten.
- Rosillo and Ellis later reached a settlement; the court entered an order dismissing Rosillo’s claims against Ellis with prejudice (initially entered December 31, 2014, then corrected January 5, 2015).
- Because the Ellis claim was voluntarily dismissed, the prior grant of summary judgment to Holten became a final judgment by operation of law; the court had not entered a separate Rule 58(a) judgment document for Holten.
- Rosillo filed a notice of appeal that expressly appealed the January 5, 2015 order and judgment dismissing the Ellis claim, but did not identify or mention the December 23 summary-judgment order dismissing Holten.
- The Eighth Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review the unmentioned December 23 order dismissing Holten and affirmed the January 5, 2015 judgment dismissing Ellis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court may review Holten dismissal when Rosillo's notice of appeal designated only the Jan. 5 order | Rosillo contended the appeal from the Jan. 5 order "in their entirety" brought up earlier rulings, including the Dec. 23 grant to Holten | Holten (and court) argued the notice identified only the Jan. 5 order dismissing Ellis and did not designate the Dec. 23 order dismissing Holten, so no jurisdiction | Court held notice did not designate the Dec. 23 order; appellate jurisdiction lacking to review Holten dismissal |
| Whether a notice appealing a later judgment brings up earlier, separate orders not identified | Rosillo argued designation of the final judgment should encompass prior related orders | Defendants relied on rule and precedent that a notice specifying a particular order precludes challenging unmentioned orders | Court held specifying a particular order precludes review of other unlisted orders |
| Whether the phrase "in their entirety" in the notice expands the scope to other orders | Rosillo claimed that phrase encompassed all related orders | Court and defendants said the phrase adds nothing beyond the documents actually designated | Court held the phrase did not expand the notice to include the Dec. 23 order |
| Whether the Rule 58 formal-entry requirement affects finality here | Rosillo implied procedural irregularity in separate judgment entry might affect appeal scope | Court noted Rule 58 but found judgment for Holten entered by operation of law 150 days after the Dec. 23 order | Court treated Holten judgment as final by operation of law but still unappealed due to notice defect |
Key Cases Cited
- Hope v. Klabal, 457 F.3d 784 (8th Cir. 2006) (prior judgment becomes final when remaining claims are dismissed)
- Greer v. St. Louis Reg’l Med. Ctr., 258 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2001) (appeal of final judgment ordinarily brings up prior predicate orders)
- Parkhill v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co., 286 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2002) (a notice specifying a particular order precludes challenging unmentioned orders)
- Bosley v. Kearney R-1 Sch. Dist., 140 F.3d 776 (8th Cir. 1998) (appeal of later judgment does not confer jurisdiction to review earlier dismissal not designated)
- Klaudt v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 990 F.2d 409 (8th Cir. 1993) (same principle on limits of notice of appeal)