Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03380/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03380-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3380

___________

Benedict Atakpu, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

The School District of Kansas City, *

Missouri, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 6, 2007

Filed: September 26, 2007

___________

Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Benedict Atakpu appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his employmentdiscrimination action as untimely filed. Upon de novo review, see Koehler v. Brody,

483 F.3d 590, 596 (8th Cir. 2007), we conclude that dismissal was improper because

the documents Atakpu submitted to the district court on November 8, 2005, were

sufficient to initiate a civil action for purposes of Title VII, and November 8 was

within 90 days of August 25, the day Atakpu received a right-to-sue-letter from the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1)

(once EEOC has dismissed charge and notified aggrieved person, aggrieved person

may bring civil action within 90 days); Page v. Arkansas Dep’t of Corr., 222 F.3d 453,

Appellate Case: 06-3380 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2007 Entry ID: 3355642
1

We do not consider Atakpu’s arguments related to the denials of his motion for

a default judgment and motion for relief from judgment because he did not file a

proper appeal of those judgments. See Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) (notice of appeal

must “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed”); Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii) (party intending to challenge order disposing of motion after final

judgment has been entered must file notice of appeal or amended notice of appeal

within time prescribed). 

-2-

454-55 (8th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff’s Title VII action was timely-filed where she timely

submitted her EEOC charge and right-to-sue letter to district court, even though court

informed her documents were not in proper form and she later submitted amended

complaint after 90-day deadline); Huston v. General Motors Corp., 477 F.2d 1003,

1008 (8th Cir. 1973) (request for appointment of attorney within time limit (then 30

days) is “bringing of the civil action” for purposes of Title VII).

Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal and remand for further proceedings.1

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3380 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2007 Entry ID: 3355642