Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_07-cv-00598/USCOURTS-almd-1_07-cv-00598-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

ERIC SAFFOLD, AIS #241410, )

)

Petitioner, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:07cv598-MHT

) (WO)

J. C. GILES, Warden, )

et al., )

)

Respondents. )

OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the court on petitioner Eric

Saffold's motion to treat the appellate brief he filed in

this court as a notice of appeal. For the reasons that

follow, the motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Saffold filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas

corpus in this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254,

challenging a conviction in an Alabama court. The

petition was assigned to a magistrate judge who

subsequently filed a report recommending that the

petition be denied and the case be dismissed. On March

Case 1:07-cv-00598-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 05/17/10 Page 1 of 8
* Saffold is a state inmate currently confined at

the Staton Correctional Facility. Any document filed by

a pro se inmate is deemed filed the date the document is

delivered to prison officials for mailing. Fed. R. App.

P. 4(c)(1) (“If an inmate confined in an institution

files a notice of appeal in either a civil or a criminal

case, the notice is timely if it is deposited in the

institution's internal mail system on or before the last

day for filing.”). The brief filed by Saffold indicates

that he submitted the document for mailing on April 21,

2010. See Appellant's Br. at 44. Thus, the court

considers April 21, 2010, as the date the brief was

filed.

2

26, 2010, following an independent and de novo review of

the file in this case, this court adopted the

recommendation and denied Saffold's habeas petition; a

final judgment denying the petition was entered on the

same date.

Twenty-five days later, on April 21, Saffold filed a

brief titled "Appellant's Brief and Arguments In Support

of the Denial of Appellant's Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus." Appellant's Br. at 1 (Doc. No. 15).*

 While in

all earlier filings Saffold identified himself as

“petitioner,” the heading of the brief names "Eric

Saffold" as the "Appellant" and "J. C. Giles, Warden, and

Case 1:07-cv-00598-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 05/17/10 Page 2 of 8
3

the Attorney General for the State of Alabama" are

identified as the "Respondents." Id. The heading also

indicates that the brief was filed in the United States

District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The

opening paragraph of the brief states that, "Saffold ...

respectfully submits his Appellant brief with arguments

in support of his petition for writ of habeas corpus ...

which was denied March 26, 2010." Id.; see also id. at

5 (stating that the "Appellant filed a petition for writ

of habeas corpus ... which resulted in being denied ...

on March 26, 2010, Case No. 1:07-CV-598-MHT.").

Nineteen days after filing his appellate brief,

Saffold filed the instant motion to treat the brief as a

notice of appeal.

II. DISCUSSION 

Rule 3(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure states that, "An appeal permitted by law as of

right from a district court to a court of appeals may be

taken only by filing a notice of appeal with the district

Case 1:07-cv-00598-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 05/17/10 Page 3 of 8
4

clerk within the time frame allowed by Rule 4." Rule

4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,

in turn, requires that a notice of appeal in a civil case

"be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after

the judgment or order appealed from is entered." "This

30-day time limit is 'mandatory and jurisdictional.'"

Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278 (11th Cir. 2001).

In this case, because it is clear that Saffold filed his

appellate brief within the 30-day time limit, the

question is whether the court may treat the brief as a

notice of appeal. 

The United States Supreme Court has explicitly held

"that a document intended to serve as an appellate brief

may qualify as the notice of appeal required by Rule 3."

Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245 (1992). In so ruling,

"[t]he Court reasoned that Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure '3(c) governs the content of notices of

appeal,' and that its requirements are to be 'liberally

construed.'" Rinaldo v. Corbett, 256 F.3d 1276, 1278

Case 1:07-cv-00598-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 05/17/10 Page 4 of 8
5

(11th Cir. 2001). Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) requires only

that a notice of appeal "(A) specify the party or parties

taking the appeal[;] ... (B) designate the judgment,

order, or part thereof being appealed; and (C) name the

court to which the appeal is taken." Thus, "in

determining whether a document may be construed as a

notice of appeal, [a court] must first ask if 'the

litigant's action is the functional equivalent of what

... Rule 3 requires." Rinaldo, 256 F.3d at 1278-79

(emphasis added). 

"Barry [also] illuminates ... an intent component."

Id. at 1279. "[T]he Court note[d] that 'a notice of

appeal must specifically indicate the litigant's intent

to seek appellate review, as the purpose of this

requirement is to ensure that the filing provides

sufficient notice to other parties and the courts.'" Id.

(citation omitted). "Thus, the touchstone of Rule 3's

intent prong is 'the notice afforded by the document, not

the litigant's motivation in filing it.'" Id.

Case 1:07-cv-00598-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 05/17/10 Page 5 of 8
6

The court finds that Saffold's appellate brief

contains the functional equivalent of what Rule 3(c)

requires. The heading of the brief clearly identifies

Saffold as the ‘appellant,’ and thus "specif[ies] the

party ... taking the appeal." Fed. R. App. P.

3(c)(1)(A). The opening paragraph indicates that his

petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied March 26,

2010. This statement is sufficient to "designate the

judgment ... being appealed." Fed. R. App. P.

3(c)(1)(B). The brief does not identify the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals as "the court to which the

appeal is taken." Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(C). But this

failure is not fatal, as the Eleventh Circuit is the only

court of appeals where appellate review of his claim is

available and thus this information is implicitly

provided by the brief. See Barret v. United States, 105

F.3d 793, 796 (2nd Cir. 1996) ("[A]lthough Barrett failed

to specify this court as that to which he was taking his

appeal, review of the district court's order could be had

Case 1:07-cv-00598-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 05/17/10 Page 6 of 8
7

only in this court."); McLemore v. Landry, 898 F.2d 996,

999 (5th Cir. 1990) (The "intent to appeal to this court

is made manifest by the fact that this is the only court

to which an appeal may be had."); 20 James Wm. Moore, et

al., Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 303.21(3)(d) (3d ed.

2009) ("[A] mistake in designating the court will not

deprive the appellate court of jurisdiction to hear the

appeal, if the district court appears in the caption, and

it is obvious which appellate court has jurisdiction.").

The court also finds that Saffold's appellate brief

provides sufficient notice of his intent to appeal. As

noted above, the document identifies Saffold as the

“appellant,” while in earlier filings he identified

himself as “petitioner”; it is titled "Appellant's Brief

and Arguments in Support of the Denial of Appellant's

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus"; its opening sentence

states, "Saffold ... submits his Appellant brief with

arguments in support of his petition for writ of habeas

corpus ... which was denied March 26, 2010"; and the brief

Case 1:07-cv-00598-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 05/17/10 Page 7 of 8
does not otherwise appear to be directed to this trial

court, for it is does not seek reconsideration of any

arguments but rather puts forward the arguments anew. The

evidence is clear that the brief is directed to an

appellate court.

***

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that

petitioner Eric Saffold's motion to treat his appellant

brief as a notice of appeal (doc. no. 16) is granted and

said brief (doc. no. 15) is treated as a notice of appeal.

DONE, this the 17th day of May, 2010.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00598-MHT-CSC Document 17 Filed 05/17/10 Page 8 of 8