Robert Shuler v. H. Edward Garrett, Jr.
715 F.3d 185
6th Cir.2013Background
- Plaintiffs appeal district court’s dismissal under FRCP 12(b)(6) and denial of FRCP 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment.
- District court held the Rule 59(e) motion untimely due to incorrect docket entry in ECF.
- Notice of appeal was filed 30 days after the Rule 59(e) denial, not after the dismissal order.
- Plaintiffs contend the Rule 59(e) filing was timely and tolled the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(4).
- Defendants argue the Rule 59(e) motion was untimely because of the docket-number error and did not toll the appeal period.
- Court concludes the Rule 59(e) motion was timely and tolled the 30-day appeal period; appeal timely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the Rule 59(e) motion timely given the docket-number error? | Plaintiffs rely on timely ECF reception despite wrong docket number. | Docket misentry renders the motion untimely. | Timely filed; tolls appeal period. |
| Does timely Rule 59(e) toll the 30-day appeal period under Rule 4(a)(4)? | Rule 59(e) timely tolls the appeal window. | No tolling if the motion is untimely. | Rule 59(e) tolled; appeal timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- Farzana K. v. Indiana Department of Education, 473 F.3d 703 (7th Cir. 2007) (timely electronic filing despite wrong docket number)
- Royall v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 548 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (timely electronic notice of appeal despite ECF glitch)
- United States v. Harvey, 516 F.3d 553 (7th Cir. 2008) (timely e-filing despite failure to file paper copy)
- Contino v. United States, 535 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2008) (counsel’s electronic filing errors do not render filing untimely)