Sudduth v. Texas Health & Human Services Commission
830 F.3d 175
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Karen Renee Sudduth sued Texas Health & Human Services Commission and individual defendants alleging Title VII and ADA discrimination; some claims were dismissed and defendants won summary judgment on the remaining claims on July 13, 2015.
- Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) requires a notice of appeal be filed within 30 days of entry of judgment; Sudduth’s notice was docketed in CM/ECF on August 13, 2015 (31 days after judgment).
- The Western District of Texas requires electronic filing for counseled civil cases and its Electronic Filing Procedures state a filing is complete when the CM/ECF-generated notice of electronic filing (NEF) is produced and sent, including a timestamp.
- Sudduth contended her counsel attempted to file on August 12 but encountered CM/ECF problems and argued the court should not adopt the Second Circuit’s Franklin rule or should apply it prospectively.
- The court requested briefing on whether to follow Franklin v. McHugh and ultimately found Franklin persuasive and dispositive: an electronic filing is not "filed" until the NEF is generated and sent.
- Sudduth did not move for an extension or seek relief for technical failures under the district procedures or Rule 4(a)(5); therefore the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction as untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an electronically filed notice of appeal is "filed" when counsel submits it or when CM/ECF generates the notice of electronic filing | Sudduth: the filing was timely (attempted earlier) and courts should not adopt Franklin’s rule | Defendants: local rules/CM/ECF procedures show filing is complete only when NEF is generated; thus Sudduth’s filing was late | Court: Adopts Franklin rationale; filing is complete when CM/ECF generates the NEF, so appeal was untimely and jurisdiction is lacking |
| Whether technical CM/ECF failures or retroactivity of Franklin excuse late electronic filings | Sudduth: CM/ECF malfunction may have delayed filing; Franklin is new law and should not be applied retroactively | Defendants: local rules provide curative mechanisms; party must seek relief (extension or relief for technical failure) | Court: Technical failures do not excuse untimeliness absent seeking available remedies; Franklin applies and Sudduth’s failure to seek relief dooms appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Franklin v. McHugh, 804 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 2015) (an electronically filed notice is "filed" when CM/ECF generates and sends the NEF)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (Sup. Ct. 2007) (timely filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional)