## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 12

- 1265 K HO R C HI N L IM, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. C OURTCALL I NC ., e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 11- C- 748

—Rudo lphT. Rand a, Ju dge
.
S UB MI TT ED M AY 18, 2012

— D ECI DE D J UNE 19, 2012

Befo reE A ST E RB ROO K, Chie f Judge, and B AUERand W IL L IA MS, C ircu it Judges . E A S T E RB R OO K, Ch i e

f J udg e . T h e c om p lain t in th is s u it al l ege d that Cour tcal l, wh i ch gi ves noti ces to litig an ts; fel low tena nt s in the ap artm en t bu il d ing w he re plaintiff l i ve s i n Madi so n, W isc o ns i n; a l o ca lpo l i ce o ffi ce r ; the Dane County Dis tr i ct Attor ney’ s Offi ce; t h e G ove rno r of W i sco nsi n; and a f or m erPri m e M i ni ste r ofS in gap or e; al l have co nspir ed to r uin pla i nti ff’ s l i f e. The di str i ct2 N o. 12

- 1265

cour t di sm i sse d thi s s uitas f antas ti cal

. 20 11 U .S

. Dis t. L EXIS13 5733 ( E.D. W i s. N ov. 17, 20 11)

. Obser vin g that pla i nti ffhad re centl y b om bard ed the cour t with f ri vol ous s uit s, the j ud ge i nvok ed the cour t’ s power t o prot ect i tse l fand the defe nd ants f ro m abuse o fpro cess . Pl a i nt i ffh a d 3 0 days to a pp e a l b utt o o ka l mos t9 0
. On F e b r ua r y 3 , 2 0 1 2 , h e fi l e d a mo t i o n un der Fed. R
. App

. P. 4( a) ( 6) , wh i ch pro vi des: The dis tr i ct c ourtm ay re open the ti m e t o fi l e a n appeal f ora peri od of14 days afterthe date when i ts ord er to r eo peni s en te r ed, b uto nl y i fa l l the f o l l o wi ngc o nd i t i o ns a r e s a t i s fi e d: (A ) th e c ou rtfind s t h a t t h e m ov in g p ar ty d id n ot rec eiv e n ot ice u n d e r Fe d er al R u le of C ivil Pr o ce dur e 77( d) o fthe e nt r y o fthe j udg m en t oro rderso ught to be app eal ed w i thi n 21 days afterentr y; ( B) the mo t i o n i s fi l e d wi thi n 1 8 0 da y s a f ter th e jud gm e n t o r or d er is en te re d or w ith in 14 days a fterthe m ovi ng par ty recei ves not ice un d er Fed eral Ru le ofCivil Proc ed ure 77 ( d) o fthe e nt r y , whi ch ev eri s ea r l i er ; a nd ( C) the co urt fi nd s that no p ar ty w oul d be pr ej ud i c e d. 2 8 U
. S

. C

. § 2 1 0 7 ( c ) co n t a i n s s i mi l a r l a n g u a g e ; f o r s i mpl i ci tywe r efert o the r ul e wi th o utc r oss-ref er en ci ng the s tatute. Pl ai nti ffto l d the j ud ge that he was o ut o f the c ountr y b etween N ove m ber 1 7, 20 11, and J anuary 27, 20 12 , a nd, unt i l he o p en ed the mai l f o l l o wi nghi s r etur n,N o. 12

- 1265 3 did notr eal i ze that the c ourt had dis m i sse d thi s ca se. W i th o ut di sc us sing what i t m ea ns t o “ r ec ei ve no ti ce , ” th e c ou rtreo p en ed th e t im e fo r ap p ea l. W e o r d e r e d a lim ite d rem an d so th at th e jud ge co u ld consi der both the m eani ng of “r ecei ve noti ce” and w hether pl a i nt i ff’ s f a c t ua l r e pr e s e nt a t i o n wa s h o nest

— for in anothe r case pl ai nti ffas ser ted thathe ha d not l ear ned of th e v e r y s a me j u d g me n tu n t i l F e b r ua r y 1 6 , 2 0 1 2
. We obs er ved that“o ne o fthes e r epres en tati ons m ust be f al se. Per haps both ar e f al se. ” Khor Ch in Li m v. Co urt call Inc . , N o. 12

- 1265 ( 7th Ci r. A pr. 24 , 20 12) ( nonprece denti al or der)

. The i ncon sistency had l ed the dist ri ct j ud ge to deny pl ai nti ff’ s m oti on under Rul e 4( a) ( 6) i n the othe r c as e, w h ich w e d ism iss ed

. KhorC hin Li m v. St apl e s Inc ., N o. 12

- 1405 ( 7th Ci r. A pr. 24 , 20 12) ( nonprece denti al dispos i ti on ). The f ate o fthi s a pp ealr em ai ned to be dec i de d. On rem and, the j ud ge concl ud ed th at pla i nti ffwas tr u th fu l in a ss er tin g t h at h e w as ou t o f th e c o u n tr y u n til J anuary 27, 20 12, and l ear ned about th e advers e j ud gm en t o n l y a fte r h is re tu rn . B u t t h e jud ge rev ok ed h is or d er u n d er R u le 4 (a)( 6), c on c l u d in g n ot on ly th at it does not m at te r w hen a l i ti gant opens hi s m ai l, but al so tha ti tdo e s n o tma t t e r wh e the r the l i t i g a ntr e c e i v e s a c o py of t h e jud gm en t a t a ll. H er e is th e re as o n in g: (1) R u le 4( a) ( 6) ( A) co nd iti o ns r eo pen i ngo n a j udi ci alfi ndi ng that the l i ti gant “did no t re c ei ve noti ce under Feder al Rule ofCi vi l Pro cedure 77( d) o fthe entr y of the j ud gm ent o r or der s ought to be a pp eal ed w i thi n 21 d ays aft er en tr y” ; ( 2 ) R u le 7 7(d )(1) p ro vid es th at, i m m ed iat ely4 N o. 12

- 1265 afterente ri ng a j ud gm ent, the c ler k “ m ust s er ve noti ce of th e en try , a s pr o vi ded i n Ru l e 5(b) , o n e ac h pa r tywho i s no t i n defa u lt” ; ( 3) Rule 5(b) ( 2) ( C) i n turn provi des that ser vi ce b y m ai l i s co m plete o n m ai l i ng. I t f ol l ows, th e j ud g e tho ught, tha t a l i t i g a nt “ r e c e i v e s ” no t i ce o f j ud gm ent a s s oo n as the c l er k m ai l s i t. W e di r ec te d the pa r ti es t o fi l e m emor an da di sc us sing how we s h oul d procee d i n l i ght o fthe dist ri ct cour t’ s o rder

. Fo ur g ro ups of app el l ees fi l ed separ ate m em oran d a; allfou r conte nd that the d istri ct j ud ge’s m ostr ecento rderi s co rr ect and that we sho uld d ism iss the a pp eal

. P l ai nti ffdi d not f ol l ow our instr ucti on t o fi l e a m em or andu m . But he di d file a m oti on t o re cuse allthree j ud ges of the p an el. H e con ten d s tha t the orders w e e n te re d in t h i s c a s e a n d inSta ples sh ow that w e are bi ase d agai nst hi m . Thi s co ntenti on is fr i vol ous. A dvers e deci si ons do not est abl i sh bi as orev en hi nt atbia s. S ee Liteky v . U n i t e d S ta tes , 510 U

. S. 540 (1994). Plaintiff’s mot i o n i s de ni e d. A pp el l ate Rule 4( a) ( 6) does notm esh per f ectl y with Civi l Rule s 5 ( b) and 77( d). Rule 4(a)(6 ) ta l ks of“r ecei pt” ofa docum ent under Rule 77( d); but Rules 77 ( d) a n d 5(b) c oncer n “se rv i ce” ra therthan re cei pt. The co m m i tte e n o t e s t o R u l e 4 ( a ) ( 6 ) s h o w th a ti ti s de s i g n e d t o a l l o w a di s t r i c t j ud g e t o r e o pe n the t i me f o r a pp e a l i f no ti ce o f the j ud gm ent doe s no t a rr i ve

— w hetherthe f aul t l i es w ith th e clerk or th e Post al Ser vice. T he district cou rt’s m ostr ecentdeci si on would prev ent the r ule fro m se r vi ngtha t func ti o n. T he co m m i tte e no te to the 2 005 am endm ent, wh i ch a dde d the ph r a s e o n whi c h the di s t r i c t j ud ge re l i e d,N o. 12

- 1265 5 shows that re f er ence to “noti ce under Feder alRule o f Civil P ro cedure 77( d)” tel l s us w hatki ndo fnot i ce Rule 4( a) ( 6) i s t al ki ng ab out: t h e n oti ce that the di str i ct cl er k m u st gi ve und erRule 77 ( d). U nti l 20 05 noti ce f ro m a no the r l i t i g a nt ( wr i t t e n o r o r a l ) c o ul d pr e v e nt a l i tiga nt fro m o btai ni ng ext ra ti m e, ev en i fthe cl er k nev er sent noti ce ( orthe m ai l went aw ry )

. The new la nguage mea ns tha t onl y n o t i c e u nd e r R ul e 7 7s uffi c e s . By s a y i ngth a tse r v i c e i s co mpl e t e o n mai l i ng, R ul e 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( C) te l l s us tha t th e cl er k ’ s ta ski s ac co m pl i sh ed when th e m ai l i s turned ov erto th e P os talS er vi ce; the cl er k nee d noto bt ai n a r etur n r ec ei pt. Thi s r ul e f o r whati t m ea ns to “se rv e” a docum ent doe s no t t el l us that ser vice equal s r ecei pt; o ther w i se Rule 4( a) ( 6)(A ) w oul d have sai d “the c ourtfi nd s that t h e cl er k di d not s er ve noti ce un d er Fed eral Ru le ofCivil Proc ed ure 77(d) of th e ent ry o fthe j udg m en t” r athe r tha n “ th e co ur t finds tha t th e m ov in g p a r t y d id n ot rec eiv e n ot ice u n d er Fe d er al R u le ofCi vi l Pro cedure 77( d) o fthe entr y o fthe j ud gm ent”. Oth erc o ur ts o fa ppea l s sh ar e o ur vi ew tha t a do cum ent i s no t “ re ceiv ed ” under Rul e 4 ( a) ( 6) unti l i t a rr i ves at th e litig an t’s ad d r e s s . S ee , e.g., Wi l l i am s v. Was hi ngt on C onvention C ent erAutho ri ty, 481 F.3d 856 ( D
. C

. Cir. 2007); P oole v. Fam ily C ourt of N ew C astl e C ounty, 36 8 F
. 3d 263 ( 3d C ir. 20 04 ). A s far as w e ca n te ll, n o c ou rt of a p p ea ls ha s ac ce pte d the di stric t co ur t’ s co nc l us i o n tha t a do cum en t i s “r ec ei ve d” f o r the pur po se o fRul e 4( a) ( 6) the instan t it is “served ” un d er Ru les 5( b) and 77(d). Bu t o ur co ncl usi on that a docum en t i s “ re cei ved” wh en d eli vered to the p rop er ad d ress d oes not assist plaintiff

.6 N o. 12

- 1265 W hen he ca m e ho m e o n J anuary 27, the judgm ent was w aiting forhim

. I t had been both served by the clerk and deli ver ed b y the Po sta l S er vi ce. Pl ai nti ffdoes not off erany re aso n to doubt that it ar riv ed w i thi n 21 days o f th e j udg m en t’ s en tr y . I ns te ad he co nt en ds th at a do cum en t i s no t “r eceived” un ti lthe e nv el o pe i s o pen ed an d the c onte nts r ead. H e doe s no t furni sh any su p portf or th at p r o p o s itio n (rec all th at h e fa iled to co m p ly wi th o u r o r d e r t o fi l e a me mo r a n d u m o fl aw ) , a n d we co ul d no t fi nd a ny . D eli very to the a ddr es s o n fi l e ( th e l i ti gant’ s, o r the l i ti gant’ s l aw yer ’s if t h e l i ti gant i s r eprese n te d by co u n se l) is th e n or m al m ea n in g o fr e c eip t in l aw . N o auth or ity of w hi ch w e a re aware hol ds that a l i ti gant m ay defe r “r ecei pt” o fa docum ent b y f ai l i ng to op en th e e n ve lop e c on ta in in g it. Q u ite th e c on tr ar y, th is ci rcui t r ecent l y r ej ecte d j ust s uch a co ntenti on. S ee Ho v. D onov an , 5 69 F
. 3d 67 7 ( 7th Ci r. 2 009). Nei th erthe t ex t of Rule 4( a) ( 6) , nor anythi ng i n the com m i tte e no te s, sugge sts that“r ecei ve” has a n unusual m eani ng. Plaintiffcou ld h ave ask ed the P o s tal Servi ce, or a f ri end, to f or w ar d his m ai l

. H e co uld have furni shed th e d ist ric t c ou rtw ith an ad d re ss w h e r e m ail w ou ld r ea chhi m whil e he was abr o ad, o r the na m e an d ad d re ss of an ag en t w h o w ou ld rec eiv e m ail on h is b e h a l f a n d r e l a y i t t o h i m. He c o u l d h a v e c h e ck ed th e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s e l ectr oni c dock et, wh i c h i s a vai l abl e fro m an yw he re i n th e w orld. (Plaintif f told th e d istri ct cou rt that i t was by check i ng the el ectr oni c dock et, k n own as P A C E R, th at h e d isc ov er ed th e jud gm en t in Sta ples .) E ach o f t h ese op tions w ou ld h ave p rotecte d his opp ort u n i t y t o a p p e a l, b u th e c h o s e n o n e o fth e m.N o. 12

- 1265 7 Th e t i me t o a pp e a l i s l i mi t e d by sta t ut e , s e e 2 8 U. S

. C. §210 7, and thi s l i m i t i s j uri sdic ti onal

. S ee Bow les v. R uss el l , 55 1 U.S

. 20 5 ( 2007 )

. Th e j ud i ci ar y i s no t e nti tl ed to add ti m e j ust be cause a l i ti gant fails to o pen orr ead h is m ail

— o r f or an y o th ere xt r a- st atut o r y r ea so n. The dist ri ct c ourtther ef or e pr oper l y r evo ked the ea rl i er or d er t h a t h ad reo p en ed th e t im e fo r ap p ea l, an d th is appe ali s di smi ss ed f o r wanto fj ur i sdi ct i o n.

6- 19- 12