Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except under the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30087
ROBERT CRA I G; CL ARENCE E S POT TS VI LL E P l ai n t i f fs- A pp el l an t s v. P O L IC E JU R YG R A N T P A R ISH ; W C H O L L O W AY , I n di vi du al l y an d as a M e m b e ro f

t he Gr a ntPa r i s h Po l i c e J ur y ; J U LI U S F RED SCOTT, I nd i v i d ua l l ya nda s a M e m b e ro f t he Gr a ntPa r i s h Po l i c e J ur y , M I CH AEL L B R O W N , I ndi vi dual l y and as a M em berof t he G r antPari sh Pol i c e J ury; D O N N IE B R O W N , I n di vi du al l y an d as a M em ber of t h e G ran tP ari sh P ol i ce Ju ry; M A R V IN D E L O N G , I n di vi du al l y an d as a M em ber of t h e G ran tP ari sh Pol i c e J ur y; M EL VI N E G EN E A LLE N , I ndivi dua l l y anda s a M e m be ro f t he G r a n t P a r is h P o lic e J u r y , D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e W est ern D i st ri ctof L ou i si an a, A l exan dri a D i vi si on N o. 03- C V

- 147

B ef ore K IN G , D AV IS, an d B E N AV ID E S , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * Pl ai nt i f fs - ap pe l l ant s Rob e r tCr ai g andCl ar e nc e E. Spo t t s vi l l e a ppe alt he di sm i ssalof

t h ei r proc edu raldu e process cl ai m s aga i n stdefen da n t s- ap pel l ees, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30087

The suffici ent notice of appeal also attached, apparentlyin error, a Febru ary23 , 20 06, 1 docume nt title d “Pl aintiffs’ Respo nse to Defendants’ Suppl ement al Request for Productionof Do cu me nts .” 2 t he Pol i c e J ury of

G r antPari sh, Loui si ana, and i t s m em ber s i n t hei rof f i ci al
c a p a c itie s . P la in tiffs ch a lle n g e t h e P o lic e J u r y ’ s c lo s u r e o f a p o r tio n o f a p u b lic
r o adt hatdi d no ta butt he i rpr o pe r t i e s b utt hatpr o vi de d a no n- e xc l us i ve m e ans of access t o t h ei r properti es. W e do not reach the m eri t s of t h ese c l ai m s because t hi s appealm ustbe di sm i ss ed as unt i m el y.

I . Fa c t ualand Pr oc e dur alBac kgr ound T h e di st ri ctcourtgran t ed d efen da n t s’m ot i on forsu m m ary j u dg m en ton D ecem ber 1, 200 8, an d en t ered f i n alj u dg m en t
. A ccor di n g t o t h e F ederalR u l es of A ppel l at e Pr oc edur e, pl ai nt i f fs’not i c e of

appealw as due o n D ec em ber31, 2 0 0 8 , thirty d a ys after en try of f i n a l ju d g m e n t. F ED . R. A PP . P
. 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) (A)

. O n D ecem ber 22, pl ai n t i f fs f i l ed a d ocum en t w i t h t h e di st ri ctcourtt h at purp ort ed t o be a noti ce of a p p e a l, b u t i n factw as a Ju n e 27, 200 8, “ N ot i ce of M ot i on S et t i n g” t h at had previ ou sl y been f i l ed i n t h e case. T h e dock et en t ry assoc i ated wi t h p l a i n t i f

fs ’De c e m b e r2 2 f

i l i ng s t a t e s : “ FI LE D I N ERROR— COUN S EL A D V IS E D T O R E S U B M IT W IT H C O R R E C T P D F D O C U M E N T A T T A C H E D .” Asubsequ en tdocket entr y, al so f rom D ecem ber 22, st ates: N O T IC E of

C orrec t i ve A ct i on t o R obertG [
. ] N i da on beh al f of R obert C rai g regardi n g [ 80] N ot i ce ( O t h er)

. A ct i on t ak en : M odi f i ed textof en t ry to ref

l ectf i l ed i n err or— i n corr ectpd f att ach ed. C ou n sel ad vi s e d t o r e s ubm i tf i l i ng w i t h c o r r e c tpd f a t t ac he d. ( Ent e r e d: 1 2 /22 /20 0 8 ). O n F e b r u a r y5 , 2 0 0 9 , p la in tiffs file d a s u ffic ie n t n o tic e o f a p p e a l. 1 T h e app el l ate bri ef

i n g l et t er t o t h e parti es i n st ructed speci albri ef i n g on t h e f ol l ow i n g: “W h et h er t h e noti ce of a p p e a l, filed w i t h t h e D i st ri ctC ou rtonN o. 09- 30087

3 F ebru ary 5, 200 9, i s t i m el y f rom t h e O rder enter ed on D ecem ber 1, 200 8, f rom w h ic h th e a p p e a l is ta k e n .” P l ai n t i f fs di d n otadd ress t h e t i m el i n ess i ssue i n t h ei r opening ap pea lbri ef bu tdi d ad dress th e is sue i n t h ei r r epl y bri ef

. Plai n t i f fs expl ai n t h at on D ecem ber 22, a paralegalinad vert en t l y f i l ed a copy of

t h e Ju n e 27, 200 8, N ot i ce of M ot i on Sett i n g i n li eu of the n ot i ce of a pp ealtha tcou n selh ad i n t en ded t o f i l e. Pl ai nt i f fs a t t a c h t o t he i r r e p l y b r i e f a c o p y o f a Dec e m b e r 2 2 e m a i lt hat t he y c o nt e nd t he i rc o uns e lr e c e i ve d t hr o ugh t he di s t r i c tco ur t ’ s el e c t r o ni c f i l i ng s ys t e m a f

t e rt he m i s f

i l i ng. The e m ai ls t at e d: C A SE : 1: 03- C V

- 0147 C A SE N A M E : Crai g, etalv. G r antPari sh, etal D O C U M E N T N U M B E R : 80 E V E N T U S E D : N ot i ce ( O t h er) E V E N T W H I C H SH O U LD H AV E B E E N U SE D : N ot i c e o f A ppeal W e a re i n r ec ei pt of t he el ec t r oni c f i l i ng i n t hi s c as e. Th e eve nt to u se w h i ch i s r eferenced ab ove w ou l d h ave been m ore app ropri ate f or t hi s f i l i ng. W e ha ve e di t e d t he t e xt o f t he pr e vi o us do c ke t e nt r y and n o f u rt h er act i on regardi n g t h i s sub m i ssi on i s requ i red at t h i s t i m e. T o a ssi stw i t h el ect roni c f i l i n g, pl ease uti l i ze t h e Sea rch feature, on t h e bl u e C M / E C F m en u bar. P la in tiffs a s s e r t th a t th e yr e lie d o n t h is e m a il a s e v id e n c e th a t: th e o n ly is s u e w ith th e irfi l i n g w a s th e irch a r a c te r iz a tio n o f th e filin go n th e e le c tr o n ic f i l i n g syst em as a “ N O T IC E ” rat h er t h an a “ N O T IC E O F A P P E A L ” ; t h e di st ri ct
c o ur tund e r s t o o d t h at thei r f i l i ng w as i nt e nde d a s a no t i c e o f a ppe al ; a nd n o f u rt h er act i on on theirp artw ou l d be requ i red. P l ai n t i f fs al so c on t en d that t h ey di d n otrec ei ve an y ot h er n ot i ce that thei r f i l i n g w as d ef

i ci en tan d d i d n otreal i ze t h e def i ci en cy un t i lt h ey i n qu i red as t o w h y t h ey h ad not r eceived a request f rom t he di st r i c tc our tt o po stfee s i n co nnect i on w i t h t he appea l
. Pl ai nt i f fs c l ai m t hatN o. 09- 30087

4 t h ey “ prom ptl y” f

i l ed su f f i ci en tnoti ce of

app ealon F ebru ary 5, 2 009 , a f t er t h ey di scovered t h e err or. I I . D i s cus s i on T h e filin go f a tim e lyn o tic e o f a p p e a l is m a n d a to r ya n d ju r is d ic tio n a l. S ee B o w les v. R u ss ell , 551 U
. S

. 205 , 2 14 ( 200 7)

. I n a civi lcase i n w h i ch the U n i t ed St at e s i s no t a pa r t y, no t i c e m us t be give n w i t hi n t hi r t y da ys af t e r e nt r y o f

t he
c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 0 7 ; F ED . R. A PP . P . 4 (a )(1 )(A ) (“[ I] n a civ il
ca se . . . the n oti ce of a p p ea l
. . . m u st b e f i l ed w i th th e d i stri ct cl erk w i th i n thirty da ys af t er t h e j u dg m e n t o r o rder app eal ed f rom i s enter ed. ” )

. Th e i ssues pre se nt ed ar e w h et herpl ai nt i f fs’t i m el y, D ec em ber22, 2008, f i l i ng w as suf f i c i ent , and i f

not , w het hert he s uf f i c i ent , Febr uary 5, 2009, f i l i ng w as t i m el y. W h i l e t h i s app ealw as pen di n g, w e add ress ed a sub st an t i al l y si m i l ar set
o f is s u e s in Ki ns l ey v . La k e v i e w Reg i o na lMe di c a lCe nt e rLLC , 57 0 F
. 3 d 58 6 ( 5 th Ci r . 20 09 ) , and di s m i s s e d t he pl ai nt i f f ’ s a ppe ala s unt i m e l y. I n Ki n sley , as here, t h e pl ai n t i f

f i n adve r t e nt l y f

i l e d a d i f

ferent c ase docu m en ti n st ead of t h e i n t en ded
n o t i c e o f

a p p e a l
. Th a tf

i l i n gw a s w i t h i n t h e de a d l i n e s p e c i f i e d b yRu l e 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) (A) b u t d i d n o t h a v e th e n e c e s s a r yco n te n ts o f a n o tic e o f a p p e a l. I d. a t5 8 9
. T he pl ai nt i f f di d notf

i l e a c or r ec t ed f

i l i ng unti laf

t erth e thi r t y- day de adl i ne had l ap sed. Th ere, as here, t h e pl ai n t i f f contended t h at s h e h a d r e li ed on
r e pr e s e nt at i o ns f

r o m the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s e l e c t r o ni c f i l i ng s ys t e m i n c o nc l udi ng th a t h e r a p p e a l w a s tim e ly
. I d. a t 5 8 9

– 5 9 0 . A s d is c u s s e d b e lo w , Ki n sley co n tr o ls
a n d p la in tiffs ’a p p e a l m u s t b e d is m is s e d a s u n tim e ly
. 1 . The Dec e m be r 2 2 N ot i c e w as N otSuf f i c i e nt Fed e r alRul e o f

Appe l l at e Pr o c e dur e 3 ( c ) ( 1) i de nt i f i e s t he m i ni m um requ i rem en t s f

or a s u f

f i ci en t n o t i ce of

app eal
. U n der t h at R u l e, a noti ce ofN o. 09- 30087

5 ap pea l m us ts pe c i f

y t he pa r t y o rpa r t i e s t ak i ng t he a ppe al ; de s i gna t e t he j udg m e nt , o r de r , o rpa r tt he r e o f b e i ng ap pe al e d; and nam e t he co ur tt o w hi c h t he
a p p e a l is t a k e n . F ED . R. A PP . P . 3 (c )(1 ); seealso G arci a v. W ash , 20 F. 3d 608, 610 ( 5th C i r. 199 4)

. R u l e 3( c) ( 4) provi des t h at “ [ a] n app ealm u stnot be di sm i ssed f or i n form a l i ty of f

orm or ti tl e of the n oti ce of ap p ea l , or for fa i l u re to n a m e a pa rty
w h o s e in te n t t o a p p e a l is o th e r w is e cle a rfr o m th e n o tic e .” F ED . R. A PP . P. 3 (c )(4 ); seealso Tu rnb u l lv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 929 F. 2d 173, 176–77 ( 5t h C i r . 1991) ( st at i ng t hat R ul e 3 ( c ) s houl d be l iber al l y c ons t r ued w her e t he i nt entt o a ppeal is a p p a r e n t a n d th e r e is n o p r eju d ic e to th e a d v e r s e p a r ty ). B u t “ th is p r in c ip le of l ib era lcon stru cti on do es n ot . .
. ex cu se n on com p l i a n ce w i th the R u l e.” S m ith
v. B arry , 502 U
. S

. 244 , 248 ( 199 2)

. B ecau se “ t h e pu rpose of [ R u l e 3] i s t o ensu re t hatt he f

i l i ng pr o vi de s s u f

f i c i e ntno t i c e t o o t he rpa r t i e s a nd t he c o ur t s , ” “ t he
n oti ce a ff

ord ed by the do cu m en t, n ot the l i ti ga n t’ s m oti va ti on i n fi l i n g it , d eterm i n es th e d ocu m en t’ s su ff i ci en cyas a n oti ce of ap p ea l
. ” I d. P l ai n t i f fs con t en d t h at becau se they received an el ect roni c noti f i cat i on on D e ce m b e r 2 2 st ati n g t h at t h ei r “ N ot i ce” shou l d h ave been f i l ed as a “N ot i ce of A pp eal , ” “ t h e di st ri ct court pl ai n l y recogni zed t h at t h e sub m i ssi on w as i n t en ded t o be a noti ce of

a pp eal
. ” B u tthe ap propri ate i n qu i ry i s not w h et h er t h e court i nt e r pr e t e d t he do c um e nta s a no t i c e o f a ppe al , b utw he t he rthe do c um e nt
sa ti sfi ed the req u i rem en ts of R u l e 3 (c) , w h i ch are “j u ri sd i cti on a li n n a tu re.” I d. at2 48
. I n Ki n sley , w e o bs e r ve d:

T h e [m is fi le d d o c u m e n t ] m e e t s o n ly o n e o f R u le 3 ( c )’s requ i rem en t s: I tna m es t h e parti es. I tdoes not de s i gna t e t he j udg m e nta ppe al e d f r o m or nam e t he c o ur t t o wh i c h a p p e a li s t a k e n . Dr
. Ki n s l e yh a s c i t e d, a n d w e h a v e fo u n d , n o ca s e s in w h ic h a n e v id e n tly m i sfi l ed do cu m en t, w h i ch i s ba l d l y n on com p l i a n t w i thN o. 09- 30087

Plaintiffs’ clai m that th ey“pro mptlytook corre ctive action” once theydiscovered the 2 erroris dubious. The mistakenfiling occurre d on December 22, 200 8. Pl aintiffs co nten d th at theydecided to check on the statu s of the appeal wh en after filingth ey“di d not receive , within the customary 7 to 1 0 day delay, a noticefrom the district co urt of fe es tobeposte d in conn ectio n with the appeal.” Had plaintiffs acte d to c orrect th eir errorseven to t en day s after the December22filing , th eycoul dh ave moved th e di strict court toextend the time to file a notice of appe al. Under Federal Rule of AppellateProcedure 4(a)(5), a district co urt may , for go od c auseshown, extend the time to file a noticeof appeal if a partymoves foranextension no late r than thirty daysaf terthe thirty-d ay appe al periodpres cribedunderRule 4(a) (1) (A) has lapsed . Butplaintiffs did not make such a motion and did not make acorrecte d filing until Feb ruary 5, 200 9, after boththe deadline to appealan d th e de adline for exte nsio n had lapsed
. 6 R ul e 3 ( c ) , has bee n d ee m ed eve n un derl iber al con stru cti on to be su ff i ci en t. 57 0 F. 3da t 5 89. As i n Ki n sley , th e N o tice of M o tion S e ttin gth a t p la in tiffs i n ad vert en t l y f

i l ed on D ecem ber 22, 200 8, i den t i f i e s th e p art i es but does not
o t he r w i s e f

ul f i l lt he r e qui r e m e nt s o f Ru l e 3 (c )

. T h e i n a d ve r t e nt l y- f i l e d d o c um e nt
w a s n o t a s u ffic ie n t n o tic e o f a p p e a l. 2 . T h e F e b r u a r y 5 N o tic e w a s N o t T im e ly Pl ai nt i f fs al so ar gue t hatt hey s houl d be exc use d becaus e t he D ec em ber22 el ect roni c noti ce t h ey received st ati n g t h at thei r “ N ot i ce” shou l d h ave been f i l ed as a “ N ot i ce of

A pp eal ” bu tt h at “ n o f u rt h er act i on . . . [w a] s r equ i red” l ed them t o b e l i e ve t hatt he i rf i l i ng w as suf

f i c i e nt , and b e c aus e t he y di d no tr e c e i ve a ny ot h er noti ce t h at t h ei r f i l i n g w as insuff

i ci en t
. P l ai n t i f

fs asserttha t“[ i ] th as been
c ounse l ’ s expe r i enc e t hat w heneve rthe U ni t ed St at es D i st r i c tC our tdee m s an el ectr o n ic fi l i n g t o be i n corr ector i n suff i ci en tt h ey send t o coun sela ‘ N ot i ce of D e fic ie n c y ’a n d s p e c ific a llyo u tlin e th e re a s o n th e s u b m is s io n is d e fic ie n t.” Pl ai nt i f fs c ont end t hatt hey di d notr ec eive suc h not i c e i n t hi s i nst ance , butt hat t he y “ pr o m pt l y” r e f

i l e d a f t e rdi s c o ve r i ng t he e r r o ro n t he i ro w n. Pl ai nt i f fs do 2
n otpoi n t t o an y requ i rem en t t h at f i l ers be contact ed w i t h such n ot i ce, an d d o notN o. 09- 30087

7 di spu t e t h at speci f

i c noti ce of

t h e def i ci en cy an d i n st ructi on s on h ow t o cure w ere pos t ed t o t he doc kets heeton D ec em ber22. I n Ki n sley , w e rej ect ed the pl ai n t i f f ’ s c on t en t ion t h at r el i an ce on
m is in fo r m a tio n in a d e fic ie n c yn o tic e g e n e r a te d b yth e d is tr ic t co u r t’s e le c tr o n ic f i l i n gs y s t e m p r o v i d e d a b a s i s f o ra v o i d i n gt h e t i m e re qui r e m e n t s o f 2 8 U. S

. C. § 21 07 ( a) and Rul e 4( a) ( 1)

. The de f i c i e nc y no t i c e i n Ki n sley stated , pu rsu a n t t o l oca lru l e, th a t t h e p l a i n ti ff w ou l d h a ve f

i ve da ys to rem ed y th e d efi ci en cyw i th
a c o r r e c t e d f

i l i ng. The pl ai n t i f

f f i l e d he rc o r r e c t e d no t i c e o f a ppe alw i t hi n t he fiv e -d a yp e r io d , b u t a fte r th e th ir ty -d a y p e r io d p r e s c r ib e d b y§ 2 1 0 7 (a ) a n d R u le 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) h a d la p s e d
. W e h e ld th a t t h e p la in tiff ’ s co m p lia n c e w ith th e lo c a l ru le and def i c i enc y not i c e di d n ot e xc use herfai l ure t o c om pl y w i t h t he f ede r al st at ut e a nd fede r alr ul e, c onc l udi ng t hatto do ot her w i se w oul d “ el evat e t he l oc al
r u le o v e rth e fe d e r a l r u le s g o v e r n in gt h e f ilin gd e a d lin e fo ra n o tic e o f a p p e a l.” Ki n sley , 5 70 F. 3da t5 89
. H ere , a s i n Ki n sley , pl ai n t i f fs’asser t i on t h at t h ey rel i ed on m i sst atem en t s i n , or on t h e a b sence of, a def i ci en cy noti ce does not
e x c u s e th e m fr o m th e “ u n q u e s tio n a b lym a n d a to r ya n d ju r is d ic tio n a l”
r e q u ir e m e n ts o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 1 0 7 (a ) a n d R u le 4 (a )(1 ). Id

. at590. I I I . Con cl usi on Pl ai nt i f fs ’t i m e l y f

i l i ng w as no ts uf

f i c i e nta s a no t i ce of a pp eal , a nd P l a i n t i f fs ’s u f f i c i e n tn o t i c e o f

a p p e a lwa s n o tt i me l y . T h e a p p e a li s DI S M I S S ED
.