Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07097/USCOURTS-ca10-89-07097-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

BOBBY BATTLE, et al. 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

and 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Intervenor, 

v. 

PARK ANDERSON, his successor; RICHARD CRISP, Warden, 

Oklahoma State Penitentiary, and his successor; J. M. 

SUNDERLAND, warden, Oklahoma State Reformatory, and his 

successor; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; F. WARREN BENTON, 

Director, his successor; and the current; BOARD OF 

CORRECTIONS, STATE OF OKLAHOMA; FRANK E. CAREY, JR., 

President; LEROY KIRK; PATRICIA MONTGOMERY; GARY M. COOK; 

CHESTER T. CURTIN; SETH MILLINGTON; WILLIAM R. THOMPSON, 

as members and their successors, 

Defendants - Appellants. 

ORDER 

Filed July 16, 1992 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

. ·) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 89-7097 

) (Dist.Ct. No 

) CV-72-95) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

The court grants appellees' motion to publish the court's decision 

in this case and orders that the court's order and judgment of 

October 22, 1991, is reissued as a published opinion. 

Appellate Case: 89-7097 Document: 01019291277 Date Filed: 10/22/1991 Page: 1 
PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D 

TENTH CIRCUIT UDited S~res Court of Appeals 

BOBBY BATTLE, et al., ) 

) 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, ) 

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Intervenor, ) 

) 

v. ) 

)) 

PARK ANDERSON, his successor; RICHARD ) 

CRISP, Warden, Oklahoma State ) 

Penitentiary, and his successor; ) 

J. M. SUNDERLAND, Warden, Oklahoma ) 

State Reformatory, and his successor; ) 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; F. WARREN ) 

BENTON, Director, his successor, and ) 

the current; BOARD OF CORRECTIONS, ) 

STATE OF OKLAHOMA; FRANK E. CAREY 1 JR. 1 ) 

President~ LEROY KIRK; PATRICIA ) 

MONTGOMERY; GARY M. COOK; CHESTER T. ) 

CURTIN; SETH MILLINGTON; WILLIAM R. ) . THOMPSON, as members and their ) 

successors, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellants. ) 

Tenth Circuit 

o.cr 2 z 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk · 

No. 89-7097 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. NO. 72-95-CIV) 

Louis W. Bullock of Bullock & Bullock, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for 

Plaintiffs-Appellees. 

Robert A. Nance, Assistant Attorney General (Robert H. Henry, Attorney General, with him on the brief) Tulsa, Oklahoma, for 

Defendants-Appellants. 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

Appellate Case: 89-7097 Document: 01019291277 Date Filed: 10/22/1991 Page: 2 
ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. 

Park J. Anderson and his successor, Warden of the Oklahoma 

State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma, appeal from the denial 

of a motion to modify an injunction entered by the district court 

on September 11, 1978. Since the notice of appeal fails to satisfy the dictates of Fed. R. App. P. 3(c), and because Anderson 

and his successor have no standing to bring this appeal, the appeal is dismissed. 

In 1978, the district court entered an order leading to the 

permanent cl~sure of the East Cell House at the Oklahoma State 

Reformatory at Granite, Oklahoma. Battle v. Anderson, 457 F. 

Supp. 719, 739 (E.D. Okla. "1978). On May 1, 1989, the Attorney 

General of Oklahoma filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) motion to 

modify the portion of the district court order concerning habitation at Granite. The district court denied the motion. The Attorney General of Oklahoma filed a notice of appeal on November 

21, 1989. On September 19, 1990, this court, sua sponte, raised 

the issue of whether the notice of appeal complied with the jurisdictional requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) 1 

as interpreted by 

the Supreme Court in Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312 

(1988). The parties were ordered to brief the Torres issue, and 

they have responded. 

The issue arises because appellants identified themselves as 

1 Rule 3(c) reads in relevant part, "The notice of appeal shall 

specify the party or parties taking the appeal • . • . An appeal 

shall not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the 

notice of appeal." Fed. R. App. P. 3(c). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-7097 Document: 01019291277 Date Filed: 10/22/1991 Page: 3 
"Park J. Anderson, et al." in the caption of the notice of appeal 

and coupled this with the phrase "defendants herein" in the body 

of the notice. 2 Park J. Anderson and his successor are wardens of 

the Oklahoma State Penitentiary at McAlester, Oklahoma. Neither 

the warden of the facility at Granite nor a higher official with 

authority over the Granite facility was specifically named as an 

appellant, although such individuals are named as defendants in 

the suit. 

2 

In Torres, the Supreme Court held that a failure to comply 

The notice at issue here, filed November 21, 1989, reads: 

BOBBY BATTLE, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

and, 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Intervenor, 

v. 

PARK J. ANDERSON I ET AL. I 

Defendants. 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Robert H. Henry, Attorney General of Oklahoma, appearing on behalf of the Defendants herein, respectfully 

appeals ••. from [the District] Court's Order of September 26, 1989 denying these Defendants' motion to 

modify previous injunctions to permit renovation of the 

East Cellhouse at the Oklahoma State Reformatory. 

Respectfully submitted, 

ROBERT H. HENRY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-7097 Document: 01019291277 Date Filed: 10/22/1991 Page: 4 
with the specificity requirement of Rule 3(c) presented a jurisdictional bar to appeal. 487 u.s. at 314. This court has consistently held that use of the phrase "et al." to designate more parties than the appellant named in the caption of the notice of appeal does not satisfy the command of Rule 3(c). See Storage Technology v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Colo., 934 F.2d 244, 247-

48 (lOth Cir. 1991) (use of "et al." together with "all the Defendants of record herein" in body of appeal leaves reviewing court 

to determine identity of appellants without any clear point of 

reference); Pratt v. Petroleum Prod. Management, Inc. Employee 

Sav. Plan & -Trust, 920 F.2d 651, 654 (lOth Cir. 1990) ("et al." 

designation in conjunction with phrase "defendants above named 

hereby appeal" does not satisfy Rule 3(c)); Laidley v. McClain, 

914 F.2d 1386, 1389 (lOth Cir. 1990) (use of "et al." together 

with "plaintiffs hereby appeal" is insufficient to confer jurisdiction over unnamed plaintiffs under Rule 3(c)). 3 These cases 

are dispositive of the authority Anderson and his successor cite 

to us on appeal. As the First Circuit stated in Santos-Martinez 

v. Soto-Santiago, 863 F.2d 174, 177 (1st Cir. 1988), "[i]t does 

not suffice that the actual appellants are now known and that no 

3 Interpreting the language in Torres that a court may find 

that an appellant has complied with Rule 3(c) "if the litigant's 

action is the functional equivalent of what the rule requires," 

487 U.S. at 317, this circuit has held that an appellant can 

timely cure any defects in the ·notice by filing additional documents with the court. See Hubbert v. City of Moore, Okla., 923 

F.2d 769 (lOth Cir. 1991) (cure through timely filing of docketing 

statement). No such cure was effectuated here. The docketing 

statement was filed more than 60 days after the entry of the September 26, 1989, order appealed from here and cannot be considered 

timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(l). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-7097 Document: 01019291277 Date Filed: 10/22/1991 Page: 5 
harm may have been done by reason of the insufficient notice of 

appeal." 

Official capacity suits are an exception to the general rule 

of Torres. Brown v. Palmer, 915 F.2d 1435, 1439-40 (lOth Cir. 

1990). See also Pratt v. Petroleum Prod. Management, Inc. Employee Sav. Plan & Trust, 920 F.2d 651, 657 n.6 (lOth Cir. 1990). 

In Brown, plaintiffs brought suit against Colonel James Palmer, 

the Base Commander of Peterson Air Force Base, and Colonel Eugene 

Cullinane, the commanding officer of the headquarters of the Air 

Force's 3rd Space Support Wing, in their official capacities. The 

notice of appeal listed only Colonel Palmer as the appellant in 

the caption of the appeal and used an "et al." designation to include Colonel Cullinane. We held that the United States had satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of Rule 3(c) because use of 

the "et al." designation in the case deprived neither plaintiffs 

nor the court of "fair notice of the specific individual or entity 

seeking to appeal." 915 F.2d at 1439 (quoting Torres v. Oakland 

Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 318 (1988)). We noted that this was 

because "[p]laintiffs clearly understood that an appeal by Colonel 

Palmer was in effect an appeal by the United States in light of 

the fact that they had sued Colonel Palmer and Colonel Cullinane 

only in 1:heir official capacities." Brown, 915 F.2d at 1439. 

In Brown, however, Colonel Palmer had standing to bring the 

appeal. Any decision reached in the case would bind all the members of the base because of Colonel Palmer's position as base commander. Here, by contrast, any judgment relating to Park Anderson 

and his successor will not bind the authorities responsible for 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-7097 Document: 01019291277 Date Filed: 10/22/1991 Page: 6 
the institution located in Granite, Oklahoma, which is the subject 

matter of this appeal. Anderson and his successor can only be 

bound as to events concerning the McAlester, Oklahoma facility. 

The Brown official capacity exception to Torres cannot sweep into 

the court's jurisdiction additional appellants who could not otherwise be bound by an appeal brought in their official capacity. 

When the party named in the notice of appeal is not the real 

party in interest to the appeal, the court lacks jurisdiction to 

reach the merits of the appeal. See Concorde Resources, Inc. v. 

Woosley (In re Woosley), 855 F.2d 687 (lOth Cir. 1988). Appellant 

Anderson and his successor lack the "personal stake in the outcome 

of the controversy" that is a prerequisite for standing. Sierra 

Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 732 (1972) (quoting Baker v. Carr, 

369 u.s. 186, 204 (1962)). 

Anderson and his successor do not advance any further exceptions to Torres and we decline to adopt any.

4 

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

4 We note that plaintiffs in this suit have been certified as a 

class. The Fifth Circuit has adopted a class action exception to 

Torres. Rendon v. AT&T Technologies, 883 F.2d 388, 398 n.8 (5th 

Cir. 1989); Morales v. Pan Am. Life Ins. Co., 914 F.2d 83, 84 (5th 

Cir. 1990). Once certified as a class, the class party only needs 

to name the class representative in the notice of appeal. An "et 

al." designation also perfects the appeal of all the remaining 

members of the class since the class representative binds all members of the class. By contrast, the parties opposing the class 

cannot merely invoke the generic class label in their notice of 

appeal because not every member of that group who could possibly 

appeal may decide to become a party to the appeal. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 89-7097 Document: 01019291277 Date Filed: 10/22/1991 Page: 7