Keith Clark v. Larry Cartledge
829 F.3d 303
| 4th Cir. | 2016Background
- Keith Alan Clark, a pro se §2254 habeas petitioner, lost in district court on December 4, 2014; the court denied relief and a certificate of appealability (COA).
- Within 30 days (on December 18, 2014) Clark filed a "Motion for Extension of Time to request for a Certificate of Appealability," citing limited prison law-library access; the district court denied that motion.
- Clark later filed a COA request and an eventual paper notice of appeal outside the 30-day window; the timeliness of appeal was therefore contested.
- The Fourth Circuit sua sponte considered whether Clark’s December 18 motion functioned as a Rule 3 notice of appeal, which would transfer jurisdiction to the court of appeals and render later district-court actions irrelevant.
- The majority applied a liberal, functional-equivalency construction of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4 to pro se filings and concluded the extension motion satisfied Rule 3’s notice requirements and was timely under Rule 4.
- The court therefore treated the December 18 filing as both a notice of appeal and (constructively) as a request for a COA, and affirmed appellate jurisdiction; Judge Niemeyer dissented, arguing the decision improperly collapses doctrinal limits on what constitutes a notice and would produce procedural mischief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a timely motion for extension of time to request a COA can serve as a Rule 3 notice of appeal | Clark: the extension motion identified him and the order to be appealed and therefore gave adequate notice under Rule 3 | State: the motion was merely speculative and did not manifest intent to appeal | Yes — the motion functionally satisfied Rule 3 and was timely under Rule 4; it conveyed intent to appeal and put the state on notice |
| Whether pro se filings should be liberally construed under Rule 3 | Clark: pro se status counsels liberal construction to effectuate notice | State: liberal construction cannot override Rule 3’s substantive notice requirements | Yes — court applies liberal construction to pro se filings, consistent with precedent, to focus on the notice afforded, not the movant’s subjective motive |
| Whether Clark’s motion also sufficed as a request for a COA to satisfy §2253(c) | Clark: construing the motion as a notice of appeal permits treating it as a COA request under Rule 22(b) | State: (not argued to contest prejudice) | Yes — the court treated the motion as a constructive COA request and considered jurisdiction satisfied |
| Whether allowing such a construction undermines appellate rules and finality | State/dissent: ruling would erase the distinction between extension motions and notices, undermine §2107, and create uncertainty | Majority: limiting principles exist — motion must be timely and satisfy Rule 3’s elements; Bailey shows motions lacking Rule 3 elements fail | Majority: the court declined to adopt the dissent’s concerns and held the specific motion met Rule 3’s requirements; Dissent: would dismiss as untimely |
Key Cases Cited
- Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757 (2001) (functional-equivalence approach to appellate notice formalities)
- Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (notice sufficiency determined by notice afforded, not litigant’s motive; notice must indicate intent to seek appellate review)
- Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 (1988) (Rule 3 requirements are jurisdictional but may be satisfied functionally)
- Doe v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246 (4th Cir.) (timely notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction to court of appeals)
- Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170 (4th Cir.) (liberal construction of pro se notices where intent is clear)
- Wells v. Ryker, 591 F.3d 562 (7th Cir.) (motion for extension to request COA can be at outer limit of functional equivalence)
- Rountree v. Balicki, 640 F.3d 530 (3d Cir.) (extension motion evidenced intention to appeal and qualified as notice)
- Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d 763 (5th Cir.) (an extension motion lacking specific reference to the judgment failed Rule 3 requirements)
- Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683 (4th Cir.) (a notice of appeal may be construed as an application for a COA under Rule 22(b))