Marcus Martin v. Hon. Paul J. Sullivan
876 F.3d 235
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Marcus Martin, a pro se appellant, filed a notice of appeal after the district-court judgment but did so late and claimed he did not receive timely notice of the judgment.
- He did not file any motion in the district court seeking an extension or reopening of the appeal period under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
- Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) (and 28 U.S.C. § 2107) normally gives 30 days to file a notice of appeal; extensions require a district-court motion under Rules 4(a)(5) or 4(a)(6).
- Rule 4(a)(5) permits an extension for excusable neglect or good cause; Rule 4(a)(6) permits reopening the appeal period when a party did not receive notice of entry of judgment—both require a motion in the district court.
- Martin filed only a notice of appeal; the Sixth Circuit evaluated whether that notice could be treated as a Rule 4(a)(6) motion to reopen time to appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a late notice of appeal can be treated as a Rule 4(a)(6) motion to reopen the appeal period when the appellant claims lack of notice | Martin contends his late notice should be treated as a motion to reopen because he lacked timely notice of the judgment and is pro se | The court (respondent) argues Rule 4(a)(6) requires an actual motion filed in the district court; a notice of appeal is distinct and cannot substitute | The court held a notice of appeal cannot be construed as a Rule 4(a)(6) motion; because Martin did not move the district court to reopen time, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (Sup. Ct.) (timely filing of notice of appeal in civil case is jurisdictional)
- Pryor v. Marshall, 711 F.2d 63 (6th Cir.) (a notice of appeal does not constitute a motion under Rule 4(a)(5))
- Poole v. Family Court of New Castle County, 368 F.3d 263 (3d Cir.) (notice of appeal cannot be construed as a Rule 4(a)(6) motion; pro se status does not excuse compliance)
- McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106 (Sup. Ct.) (pro se litigants are not excused from procedural rules)