William N. Lucy v. John Grow, II
698 F. App'x 575
| 11th Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff William Lucy appealed the district court’s January 12, 2017 order denying his motion for reconsideration and challenged the underlying dismissal of his complaint.
- Lucy sued attorney John Grow, II under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged legal malpractice arising from Grow’s handling of Lucy’s criminal case.
- The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding it lacked diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331.
- Lucy’s notice of appeal designated only the reconsideration order, but his brief made clear he intended to appeal the December 27, 2016 dismissal; the court therefore reviewed the dismissal as well.
- The district court found Grow to be an Alabama citizen for diversity purposes, so complete diversity was absent.
- The court also held § 1983 did not apply because Lucy alleged private-law malpractice, not action taken under color of state law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate court may review the district court’s December 27 dismissal despite non-designation in the notice of appeal | Lucy’s brief addresses the merits of the dismissal, showing intent to appeal that order | District court argued notice did not designate the December 27 order | Court construed Rule 3 liberally and reviewed the dismissal because the brief showed intent to appeal |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists under § 1332 | Lucy did not meaningfully dispute the jurisdictional ruling in his brief; impliedly contends federal court proper | Grow is an Alabama citizen; complaint shows lack of complete diversity | No complete diversity; § 1332 jurisdiction absent |
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists under § 1331 via § 1983 claim | Lucy asserted a § 1983 claim for malpractice | Grow argued malpractice was private conduct not under color of state law, so § 1983 inapplicable | § 1983 did not apply; no allegation of action under color of state law, so § 1331 jurisdiction absent |
| Whether appellate court should grant summary judgment on appeal | Lucy moved for summary judgment on appeal | Appellate court cannot grant Rule 56 relief; should treat motion as for summary disposition | Motion denied; court affirmed dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (appellate notice-of-appeal designation requirement)
- Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1992) (liberal construction of Rule 3 notice requirement)
- KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 465 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2006) (construing notice of appeal to include non-designated order based on brief to determine intent)