Williams v. Akers
837 F.3d 1075
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- George Rouse was transported to the Grady County Law Enforcement Center and hanged himself shortly after booking; his mother Regina Williams sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the transporting OSBI agents knew he was suicidal and failed to warn booking staff.
- The agents (defendants) moved to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds; the district court denied that motion on October 8, 2014, finding the complaint alleged a violation of clearly established Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- The defendants did not timely appeal or file a Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) motion; roughly eight months later they filed a "motion to reconsider" (construed as a Rule 60(b) motion) after the Supreme Court decided Taylor v. Barkes.
- The district court denied the motion to reconsider on July 31, 2015. Four days later the defendants filed a notice of appeal that expressly designated the October 8, 2014 order as the appealed order and referenced the July 31 order only to claim tolling under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A).
- The Tenth Circuit concluded the August 4, 2015 notice of appeal was untimely as to the October 8 order (Rule 4(a)(1)(A)), and the defendants had not expressly designated the July 31 order in their notice; their filings showed intent to appeal only the October 8 order, not the July 31 order.
- Because the designation requirement of Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) is jurisdictional and the court could not fairly infer intent to appeal the July 31 order, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the Oct. 8, 2014 denial of qualified immunity given the timing of the notice of appeal | Williams contended jurisdictional rules control; she conceded (at argument) review of the July 31 order but that concession is irrelevant to jurisdiction | Defendants argued their notice was timely because Rule 4(a)(4)(A)(vi) tolled the appeal period after the district court denied their postjudgment motion (filed as a Rule 60(b) motion) | The notice was untimely as to the Oct. 8 order; the court lacked jurisdiction to review that order and dismissed any challenge to it |
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the July 31, 2015 order denying the motion to reconsider when the notice of appeal expressly designated the Oct. 8 order | Williams asserted jurisdictional requirements must be enforced despite any concessions | Defendants asked the court to construe their notice as appealing the July 31 order (timely filed) or to infer intent to appeal based on their docketing statement, motion to stay, and issue raised (qualified immunity) | The notice failed to designate the July 31 order; documents filed within the appeal period showed intent to appeal only the Oct. 8 order (the July 31 filing was used strategically to toll time). The court could not fairly infer intent to appeal the July 31 order and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (timely filing of notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134 (2012) (designation requirement of Rule 3 is jurisdictional)
- Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992) (notice defects affect jurisdiction)
- Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (1978) (intent to appeal may be inferred in limited circumstances)
- Nolan v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 973 F.2d 843 (10th Cir. 1992) (declining jurisdiction over undesignated order used tactically)
- Denver & Rio Grande W. R.R. Co. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 119 F.3d 847 (10th Cir. 1997) (documents filed within appeal period are considered to infer intent)
- Sines v. Wilner, 609 F.3d 1070 (10th Cir. 2010) (liberal construction of Rule 3 but fair inference of intent required)