Carl West v. United States, 853 F.3d 520

Background

Carl West was convicted of robbery based on testimony manufactured by FBI agent Joe Gordwin; after Gordwin’s misconduct was exposed, West was released and criminal charges were dropped.
West filed a civil suit against the United States and Gordwin asserting multiple claims (including § 1983 claims and requests for punitive damages); Gordwin had not been served when the United States moved to dismiss.
The district court granted the government’s motion and entered judgment dismissing the entire case with prejudice, including claims against unserved Gordwin, the same day the motion was granted.
West filed a Notice of Appeal (NOA) that named the United States and the district court’s order and judgment; the NOA explicitly identified certain counts as to the United States but did not name Gordwin or the counts against him in the caption; West’s opening brief argued the dismissal of claims against both defendants.
The Ninth Circuit considered whether the NOA satisfied Fed. R. App. P. 3 requirements as to Gordwin and whether dismissal of claims against an unserved defendant was proper; the court reversed the judgment and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failing to name an appellee (Gordwin) in the NOA bars appellate jurisdiction	West argued the NOA and opening brief evidenced intent to appeal the entire judgment, including claims against Gordwin	The position (advanced in concurrence) was that omission of Gordwin and failure to mention relevant counts meant no jurisdiction to review claims against him	The court held omission of an appellee from the NOA is not jurisdictionally fatal; Rule 3 requires naming appellants, not appellees, so review is permitted
Whether the NOA sufficiently designated the judgment/orders being appealed under Rule 3(c)(1)(B)	West contended the NOA’s caption and text identified the district court’s order and judgment and the brief clarified scope	The counterargument: the NOA named only dismissals "as to the United States," so intent to appeal rulings as to Gordwin was not clear and Gordwin lacked notice	The court applied a functional approach (Smith/Foman/Le) and found intent to appeal the entire order and no prejudice to Gordwin, so the NOA was sufficient to reach claims against Gordwin
Whether dismissal with prejudice of claims against an unserved defendant (Gordwin) was proper	West argued the district court’s order implicitly dismissed the whole case but that dismissal as to Gordwin (unserved) was erroneous	The government (and district court) effectively treated the dismissal as to all defendants; concurrence stressed unfairness to Gordwin who had no notice	The court held it was clear error to dismiss claims against Gordwin with prejudice because he had not been served and the service period had not expired; reversal required
Whether Gordwin suffered prejudice from the procedural omissions, requiring dismissal of appeal as to him	West argued Gordwin suffered no prejudice because he remained in same position as before district court error and could still be served	Concurrence argued Gordwin never received notice of the appeal or an opportunity to brief, so appellate review as to him is improper	The panel majority found no prejudice: West’s NOA and brief gave sufficient notice and Gordwin had not been disadvantaged beyond the district court’s own error; concurrence dissented on this point

Key Cases Cited

Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 (clarified Rule 3 requires naming appellants in NOA)
Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (courts may construe filings functionally and treat briefs as fulfilling NOA requirements)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (NOA construed to cover judgment even when not expressly named)
Le v. Astrue, 558 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2009) (use two-step Le/Lolli analysis for orders not on face of NOA)
Ahlmeyer v. Nevada Sys. of Higher Educ., 555 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2009) (notice and opportunity to brief control whether unnamed orders may be reviewed)
Lynn v. Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l Ass’n, 804 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir. 1986) (appellate brief can provide notice when served on affected parties)
One Indus., LLC v. Jim O’Neal Distrib., Inc., 578 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2009) (functionally treating briefs as signaling intent to appeal unnamed orders)
European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 355 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2004) (no procedural basis to dismiss when service deadline had not expired)
Longmire v. Guste, 921 F.2d 620 (5th Cir. 1991) (omission of appellee in NOA is not jurisdictional bar)
Battle v. District of Columbia, 854 F.2d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (similar conclusion on appellee omission)
Chathas v. Smith, 848 F.2d 93 (7th Cir. 1988) (appellees not required to be named; omission may be harmless)
Peterson v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 627 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2010) (court must ensure its jurisdiction sua sponte)