Corey Davis v. Shamere McKenzie
18-11913
| 11th Cir. | Jun 23, 2021Background
- Corey Davis, a pro se inmate, filed a diversity suit alleging defamation and other Florida law claims; a nearly identical suit (except one defendant) had been filed by him in the Northern District of Illinois after he initiated the instant proceedings.
- A magistrate judge issued three R&Rs recommending dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim, res judicata, and as frivolous/malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and (g).
- Davis did not file objections to the R&Rs; the district court adopted all three R&Rs and dismissed the complaint with prejudice on February 8, 2018.
- Davis filed a timely Rule 59(e) motion (first motion), which tolled the appeal period; he then filed a second post-judgment motion and a motion for leave to file out-of-time objections to the R&Rs, which the court denied in April 2018.
- Davis appealed on May 3, 2018. The court analyzed whether the notice of appeal was timely and the scope of the appeal, and whether Davis preserved any issues for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction over Davis's appeal of the Feb 2018 dismissal and the Mar 2018 denial of his first Rule 59(e) motion | Davis contends the dismissal was erroneous and seeks review | Defendants argue the appeal is untimely as Davis did not file a notice within 30 days after the last tolling motion | No jurisdiction over the Feb 2018 dismissal or Mar 2018 denial; appeal untimely as second motion did not toll the appeal period |
| Whether the second post-judgment motion tolled the appeal period | Davis treated the subsequent filings as extending the time to appeal | Opposing parties argued the second motion asserted substantially the same grounds and thus did not toll under Wright | Second motion did not toll; only the first motion tolled the appeal period |
| Whether the notice of appeal encompasses orders not specified (scope of appeal) | Davis’s notice ambiguously referenced post-judgment motions | Defendants argued appeal should be limited to specified order(s) | Appeal is limited to the April 2018 denials (second motion decisions); other orders not within scope |
| Whether Davis preserved arguments (res judicata/merits) for the rulings within appeal scope | Davis argues res judicata was incorrect and statements were not substantially true | Defendants note Davis failed to raise arguments against the specific April 2018 rulings on appeal | Davis abandoned any challenge to the April 2018 rulings by failing to argue them; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 606 F.3d 1296 (11th Cir. 2010) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional in civil cases)
- Wright v. Preferred Research, Inc., 891 F.2d 886 (11th Cir. 1990) (second motion reiterating same grounds does not toll appeal period)
- Osterneck v. E.T. Barwick Indus., Inc., 825 F.2d 1521 (11th Cir. 1987) (appellate review is generally limited to matters specified in the notice of appeal)
- White v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., 664 F.3d 860 (11th Cir. 2011) (liberal construction of notices of appeal does not expand them to include unmentioned orders absent clear intent)
- Campbell v. Air Jam. Ltd., 760 F.3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2014) (pro se pleadings construed liberally but courts will not rewrite deficient pleadings)
- Albra v. Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826 (11th Cir. 2007) (all litigants must comply with procedural rules)
- Irwin v. Hawk, 40 F.3d 347 (11th Cir. 1994) (issues not challenged on appeal are abandoned)