A Multi-Purpose Notice of Appeal
In Winters v. Taskila, the Sixth Circuit held that a notice of appeal was effectively a motion to reopen the appeal window. The court went on to hold that once the district court reopened that window, this notice was also a notice of appeal. The courts of appeals have split on whether a notice of appeal can serve these dual functions. According to the Sixth Circuit, resolution of this split is now a matter for the Rules Committee.
The Notice of Appeal in Winters
Simplifying a bit, Winters involved a habeas petitioner’s seemingly late-filed notice of appeal. The district court denied habeas relief in March. But the petitioner did not file a notice of appeal until June. In that notice, he explained that he had not received the district court’s judgment until late May. This notice of appeal was filed within 14 days of the day on which the petitioner received the district court’s judgment.
The Sixth Circuit initially dismissed the petitioner’s appeal as untimely. But it left any consideration of reopening the appeal deadline to the district court. On remand, the district court treated the June notice of appeal as a motion to reopen. The district court then granted the motion to reopen and concluded that the June notice of appeal was filed within the reopened appeal window.
Reopening & Giving Notice
The Sixth Circuit held that the petitioner’s notice of appeal could function as both a motion to reopen and a notice of appeal.
On the first point, the Sixth Circuit distinguished between bare-bones notices and those that offer some explanation for the late filing. A bare-bones notice of appeal—one that states only the bare minimum needed to satisfy Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3—would not function as a motion to reopen. But “a notice of appeal that adds other information—say, that the appeal is late, that explains what happened, that explains why the appellant could not have filed it earlier—may in some circumstances be construed as a motion for extension or to reopen even though it does not explicitly use those words.” The notice in Winters had everything necessary to seek reopening.
On the second point, the Sixth Circuit saw no reason why the notice of appeal could not function as both a motion and a notice. To be sure, the notice in Winters did a lot in only two sentences:
(1) It looked like a notice of appeal but we did not treat it as one because it was late; (2) it then looked like a motion for an extension of time (given the excuse in it) but we did not treat it as one because that too would have been late; (3) it then became a motion to reopen, which was not late; and (4) it then served as a certificate of appealability.
Not every court agrees that a notice of appeal can be so multi-functional. For example, the Fourth Circuit recently held that a single notice could not be both a motion to reopen and a notice of appeal. But the Sixth Circuit thought that resolving the disagreement on this point was better left to the Rules Committee.
Winters v. Taskila, 2023 WL 8663885 (6th Cir. Dec. 15, 2023), available at the Sixth Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
Disclosure: I filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of rehearing its decision in this case and discussed the cert petition with the petitioner’s counsel. Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Parrish v. United States. The case asks if a would-be appellant must file a second notice of appeal after […]
Continue reading....
In Blackwell v. Nocerini, the Sixth Circuit held that a motion to reconsider reset the time to take a qualified-immunity appeal. The denial of immunity was immediately appealable and thus a “judgment” under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. So a motion to reconsider that denial was effectively a motion under Federal Rule of Civil […]
Continue reading....
In Gelin v. Baltimore County, the Fourth Circuit held that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4)(A) applies to appealable interlocutory orders. So a motion to reconsider such an order resets the time to appeal. The court added that a motion can effectively be one seeking reconsideration even though the motion does not cite to Federal […]
Continue reading....
In Christmas v. Hooper, the Fifth Circuit held that the prison-mailbox rule applies to notices of appeal mistakenly sent to a court of appeals. In doing so, the court had to resolve a tension between two portions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4. Rule 4(c)(1) says that an imprisoned appellant’s notice of appeal is […]
Continue reading....
In Malek v. Feigenbaum, the Second Circuit reiterated its rule that a post-judgment motion must be timely filed—not merely served—to reset the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4). The court went on to hold that although Rule 4 is a claims-processing rule, it is a mandatory one that is not subject […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts, Inc., a divided Fourth Circuit held that a court must stay proceedings—and not process a remand order—if the defendant appeals before the district court can send the remand order to the state court. The majority thought that the rule of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.—particularly as the […]
Continue reading....
Perlman Appeals in the Grand Jury Context In In re Grand Jury Subpoeans Dated Sep. 13, 2023, the Second Circuit held that the target of a grand jury investigation could appeal an order directing the target’s attorneys to disclose documents over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The order was appealable via the Perlman doctrine, which generally […]
Continue reading....
In Fleming v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit became the fifth court of appeals to reject pure Bivens appeals. The court held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without also appealing the denial of qualified immunity. Unlike some of the prior decisions, this one was unanimous. And it puts the government’s record […]
Continue reading....
Last month produced decisions involving a variety of appellate-jurisdiction issues. The Fifth Circuit decertified a § 1292(b) appeal. Judge Pillard of the D.C. Circuit explained that appellate “standing” does not require re-establishing standing in the court of appeals. The Sixth Circuit said that qualified immunity and an action’s merits are intertwined, which suggests (perhaps unintentionally) […]
Continue reading....
A new cert petition asks whether the denial of derivative sovereign immunity is immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
Continue reading....