Craig Devon Murphy v.
679 F. App'x 107
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se debtor Craig Murphy filed Chapter 7 and an adversary proceeding against the Department of Education seeking discharge of student loan debt; the Bankruptcy Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and a separate two‑page Order on August 13, 2015 granting DOE summary judgment and denying Murphy relief.
- Murphy did not timely appeal the August 13 order; on January 19, 2016 he filed a motion to reopen so he could notice an appeal to the District Court. The Bankruptcy Court denied reopening as futile and denied reconsideration, but directed the clerk to transmit Murphy’s untimely notice of appeal to the District Court insofar as the District Court had jurisdiction.
- The District Court dismissed Murphy’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the notice of appeal was untimely, and rejected Murphy’s arguments that the August order was not a final, Rule 58 “separate document” entry.
- Murphy appealed the District Court dismissal to the Third Circuit; the panel reviewed de novo whether the District Court lacked jurisdiction.
- The Third Circuit concluded the August order was a final, appealable order and complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 (applicable via Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7058), and that Murphy’s January 19, 2016 notice of appeal was therefore untimely under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002(a). The Court summarily affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Murphy) | Defendant's Argument (DOE) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the August 13 order was a final, appealable order | The order was not final because it denied Murphy’s summary judgment, did not "fix damages," and did not address all arguments | The order finally resolved the adversary proceeding by granting DOE summary judgment and disposing of all claims | The August order was final and appealable |
| Whether the August 13 order complied with Rule 58’s separate‑document requirement | The order was not a separate judgment under Rule 58 and therefore was not "entered" until later (around Jan. 2016) | The order was a separate, self‑contained two‑page order noting relief and omitting reasons, so it satisfied Rule 58 | The order complied with Rule 58 and was entered when docketed in August 2015 |
| Whether Murphy’s appeal was timely under bankruptcy rules | The January 19, 2016 notice of appeal was timely if the order was not entered until January | The notice was untimely because the order was entered in August and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002’s 14‑day limit is jurisdictional | The notice was untimely and jurisdictionally deficient |
| Whether the District Court (and Third Circuit) could reach the merits despite untimely appeal | Court could extend or reopen time analogously to civil appellate rules | Bankruptcy appellate timeliness rules are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable reopening beyond Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002; Murphy did not meet that rule’s relief provisions | Court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits and thus affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caterbone, 640 F.3d 108 (3d Cir. 2011) (timeliness of bankruptcy appeals is jurisdictional and reviewed de novo)
- In re Prof'l Ins. Mgmt., 285 F.3d 268 (3d Cir. 2002) (bankruptcy order ending separate adversary proceeding is appealable as a final order)
- LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Cmty. Ctr. Ass'n, 503 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 2007) (criteria for Rule 58 separate document compliance)
- In re Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 454 F.3d 235 (3d Cir. 2006) (orders that include extended factual/procedural discussion may fail Rule 58 separate‑document formalities)
- Plumhoff v. Rickard, 134 S. Ct. 2012 (2014) (orders denying summary judgment are generally non‑final unless they dispose of all claims)