Elliott v. City of Hartford, 823 F.3d 170

Sandra Elliott sued state and city officials over the 2007 murder of her daughter, a key witness to a 2005 homicide who was later killed before testifying.
Elliott filed multiple complaints and amendments; defendants moved for summary judgment.
On September 30, 2013, the district court issued two orders: one granting summary judgment for the State defendants and the other granting in part and denying in part the City defendants’ motion (denial was without prejudice).
The City defendants filed a renewed summary-judgment motion; on August 22, 2014 the district court granted it and ordered the Clerk to close the case.
Elliott (pro se on appeal) filed a notice of appeal referencing the August 22, 2014 order closing the case but did not expressly reference the September 30, 2013 orders; her appellate brief challenged those earlier rulings as well.
The Second Circuit considered whether Elliott’s notice of appeal conferred jurisdiction to review the September 30, 2013 orders and affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in a companion summary order.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a pro se notice of appeal from an order closing the case encompasses earlier unappealed orders	Elliott intended to appeal the September 30, 2013 rulings as shown by her brief	Defendants did not assert prejudice and briefed the merits of earlier orders	Court reads an appeal from the closing order as embracing all prior appealable orders absent prejudice
Whether technical defects in a pro se notice of appeal defeat appellate jurisdiction	The notice’s failure to name earlier orders should not bar review given pro se status and briefing	Defendants raised no jurisdictional prejudice argument	Court applies liberal construction for pro se notices and excuses technical defects when intent is clear and appellee not prejudiced
Whether appellees were prejudiced by broad reading of the notice	Elliott argues no prejudice; she expressly argued the earlier rulings on appeal	Defendants did not claim prejudice or surprise	No prejudice found; both sides briefed the issues, so jurisdiction over earlier orders is appropriate

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012) (notice-of-appeal designation requirement is jurisdictional)
Phelps v. Kapnolas, 123 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 1997) (inferences from appeal of final judgment may encompass earlier orders)
Conway v. Village of Mount Kisco, 750 F.2d 205 (2d Cir. 1984) (liberal interpretation of Rule 3(c) to effectuate appellant’s intent)
Grune v. Coughlin, 913 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1990) (technical defects in pro se notices do not always create jurisdictional defects)
Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (defective notice excused where respondent not misled and parties briefed merits)