Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02917/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02917-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable William Jay Riley became Chief Judge of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on April 1, 2010. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2917

___________

Albert Ray Steward, III, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * District of Minnesota.

*

H & R Block Financial Advisors, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]

* 

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: March 18, 2010

Filed: April 6, 2010

___________

Before RILEY,1

 Chief Judge, BYE and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appearing pro se, Albert Steward appeals the district court’s dismissal of his

petition to vacate an arbitration award. As a preliminary matter, this court has an

obligation to consider it own jurisdiction. See Thomas v. Basham, 931 F.2d 521, 522-

23 (8th Cir. 1991). We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal

order because Steward’s notice of appeal was not timely filed under the Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007) (timely

filing of notice of appeal in civil case is jurisdictional requirement).

Appellate Case: 09-2917 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651797
-2-

The district court entered judgment on May 28, 2009, and the prescribed

deadline for filing a notice of appeal was June 27, 2009. See Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(1)(A) (in civil case, notice of appeal must be filed with district court clerk within

30 days after judgment appealed from is entered). On June 26, 2009, Steward timely

filed a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) for an extension of

time to file a notice of appeal. On July 1, 2009, the district court entered an order

stating that Steward’s notice of appeal was due by August 3, 2009. Steward filed his

notice of appeal on August 3, 2009.

However, under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the deadline for

filing the notice of appeal could not be extended beyond the later date between thirty

days after the prescribed June 27 filing deadline and fourteen days after the July 1

order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C) (no extension under Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed

30 days after prescribed time to file notice of appeal or 14 days after date when order

granting motion is entered, whichever is later), 26(b)(1) (court may not extend time

to file notice of appeal except as authorized by Rule 4).

We therefore hold that the district court exceeded its authority when it extended

the deadline to August 3; that Steward’s notice of appeal, although filed in compliance

with the district court’s order, was nevertheless untimely under the federal rules; and

that this court lacks appellate jurisdiction to review his appeal. Cf. Bowles, 551 U.S.

at 206-08 (14-day limit for extending state prisoner’s time to file notice of appeal was

mandatory and jurisdictional; affirming appellate court’s dismissal of appeal for lack

of jurisdiction where district court had granted extension of notice of appeal filing

deadline beyond time allowed by statute and appellant had filed notice of appeal in

compliance with district court’s order). Accordingly, we dismiss Steward’s appeal for

lack of jurisdiction.

Appellate Case: 09-2917 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651797
-3-

BYE, Circuit Judge, concurring.

In Arnold v. Wood, this court recognized we may toll the notice of appeal

period “where a party has performed an act which, if properly done, would postpone

the deadline for filing his appeal and has received specific assurance by a judicial

officer that this act has been properly done.” 238 F.3d 992, 996 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing

Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 179 (1989)). Such would appear to be

the case here, where Albert Steward, by no fault of his own, relied on the district

court’s order granting him until August 3, 2009, to file his notice of appeal.

However, in Bowles v. Russell, a sharply divided Supreme Court held courts

of appeals lack jurisdiction to hear an untimely appeal, even in cases where the district

court erroneously extends a would-be appellant’s time to file a notice of appeal

beyond the time prescribed in the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 551 U.S. 205, 206-

07 (2007). Although Bowles compels this panel to dismiss Steward’s appeal, I write

separately simply to echo Justice Souter’s observation that “[i]t is intolerable for the

judicial system to treat people this way.” Id. at 215 (Souter, J., dissenting).

I concur in the court’s judgment.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2917 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/06/2010 Entry ID: 3651797