## 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. 10

- 1659 S CO TV I NCE, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. R OCKC OUN TY, W ISCO NSIN , etal. , D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 3:08- cv-00591- slc

— Step hen L . C ro ck er, Magis trate Judge

.
S UBMIT TED A PRIL 15, 2010

— D ECIDED M AY 3, 2010

Befo re B AUER, P OSNER, a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . P ERC UR I AM . S co t Vi nc e suff er ed a be at i nga t th e h an d s o f a n i n m at e in th e R oc k C ou n ty (W isc on sin ) j ail. Vince , a l ongt i m e co nfi denti al i nfo rm ant f or Rock County l aw enf or cem ent a genci es, claim s that he shoul d not h av e b ee n h ou se d in t h e jail’s g en er al p op u lat ion foll owing an ar re st f or bai l j um ping. A m agi str ate j u d ge determ i ned that Vince ’ s i nj ury coul d not be at tr ibuted to an y ofthe defe nd ants Vince nam ed i n hi s ci vi l r i ghts2 N o. 10

- 1659

c a s e a n d , w i th th e c o n s e n to fth e p a r t i e s , g r a n t e d s u mm ar y j ud gm ent fordefendants, te rm i nati ng the cas e. A Rule 58 j ud gm ent was e nter ed on Decem ber 14, 20 09, butthe t i m e f o r Vi nc e to a ppeal w as tol l ed be ca us e he fi l ed a ti m el y mot i o n t o a l te r o r v ac at e j udg m en t pur su ant to Rule 59

. See F ed. R. App. P. 4 ( a) ( 4) ( A)( i v)

. The m ag i str ate j ud ge denie d the m oti on, and hi s o rderwas enter ed on the di str i ct c ourt ’ s ci vi l docket o n Feb

ru ar y 1 0, 20 10 , req u irin g t h at an y a p p ea l be f i l e d w ith in 30 days o fthi s date

. On M ar ch 12, 2 010, the 30th and l astday o fthe appeal peri od, Vin c e’s counselel ectr oni cal l y s ent a not i ce o f ap p eal to the clerk’s offi ce, using th e c o u r t ’s m an d atory el e c t r o ni c fi l i ngs y s t e m. Unfo r tun a t e l y, V i nc e ’ s a t t o r ney tr an smi tt ed th e no ti ce o fa ppea l us i ngthe w rong e ve nt code. Cler k’ s offi ce sta ff disc ove re d the er ro r and noti fi ed counse l o f hi s m i sta ke i n an e m ai l se nt o n M ar ch 15, 2010 , di re cti ng hi m to r e- fi l e the n oti ce o fappealwith the c or re ct e vent c od e. Counsel di d so, and the noti ce ofappealwas tr ansm i tte d to the di str i c t c ou rta seco nd ti m e o n M ar ch 18, 20 10. The s ec o nd t r an smi ss i on of the no ti ce o fa ppea l, s en t six d ays after th e tim e to ap p eal ha d ex p ired, w a s fo rw ard ed to this c o u r t and cau sed Seven th Circu it court st afft o que st i o n the t i m el i ne ss o f V i nc e’ s appe al

. I n a m em or andu m address i n g thi s co urt’ s co ncer n abo ut i ts j uri sdic ti on o ver Vince ’ s a pp eal, Vi nce’ s co unsel r eco unts hi s m i sta ke i n tr ansm i tti ng the appeal, believi ng tha t “the ‘ or i gi nal fi l i ng’ of the N oti ce of A pp ea l was M ar ch 12, 2010 ”, and “ the M ar ch 18, 2010 filin g w asN o. 10

- 1659 3 [ m er el y ] t o pl ac e the ea r l i erf i l i ngi n the ‘r i g hte ve nt ’ ”. The di st r i ct co ur t do ck et, ho wev er, di d no t r ec o g nize the “or i gi nal fi l i ng” date

. The entr y f or M ar ch 12, i denti fi ed as docketentr y no . 98 , not ed that th e te nd er ed noti ce o f appeal was “Dis re gar d[ed] ” a nd “refi l ed as # 9 9 [ on M ar ch 18, 20 10] ”. Docke t e ntryno. 99 i s Vi nce’ s no ti ce o fa p p e a l a n d b e a r s a fi l i n gd a t e o fMa r c h 1 8 , 2 0 1 0
. We note thatthi s dock et entr y a l so i ncl ud es a cl er k’ s no te that the “ appeal w as or i gi nal l y fi l ed on 3 /1 2/2010 with the wr o nge v e ntu s e d” , a nd s up po r t s V i nc e ’ s c l a i m t hat hi s no ti ce o fappealwas ti m el y. Three rul es speak to the i ssue ofappel l ate j urisd ictio n prese nted i n thi s ca se. U nd er R ule 83 ( a) ( 2) o fthe Feder al Rules o fCi vi l Pro cedure, “ [a] l oca l r ule i m posi ng a re quir em en t o ff or m m ust no t be enf or ced i n a way that ca uses a p ar tyt o l o se a ny r i g htb ec au se o fa no nwi l l ful f ai l u re to co m ply

. ” S i m i l ar l y, Rule 5( d)( 4) pro tect s aga i nst m i sst eps i n a l i ti gant’ s co m pli ance w i th l oca l r ule s perta i ni ng to the fi l i ng of papers, dir ecting the c ler k “not to re fuse t o fi l e a paper” d u e to its nonco nfo rm i ty. F ed. R. Civ. P. 5 ( d) ( 4)

. And m o r e spe ci fi ca l l y f o r o ur pu rpos es, Feder al Rule of A pp el l ate Pro cedure 3( c) ( 4) pro hibi ts the di sm i ssa l o fan a pp eal“f ori nfo rm al i ty of for m or tit le of t h e n ot ice of ap p ea l.” Vir tual l y e ver y federa l co urt today op er ate s a co m prehens ive c as e m an ag ements y st em th ata l l o ws i t to mai ntai n el ectr oni c ca se fi l es and off erele c tr oni c fi l i ng o ver th e In te rn et . I t is inc u m b en t t h at at to r n e y s litig at in g in fede ral cou rts learn th e essen tials of e- fi li ng . Th e W estern Dist ri ct o fW i sco nsi n re quir es al l docum ents to be fi l ed4 N o. 10

- 1659 el ec tr o ni ca l l y unl es s th eyf al l unde r c er tai n e xc ept i o ns

— none o fw hi ch ar e r el evantto thi s ca se. A nti ci pati ng tha t m istakes w il l be m ad e, th e W estern District e-fi li ng user’s m an ua l i nc l ude s a se ct i o n l i st i ngc o m m on mi st ak es a nd describes the s teps that the cl er k’ s o ffi ce t ake s t o corr ect an er ro r f ound. St i l l, ther e a re b ound to b e m i sta kes m ad e a s a tto rney s be com e a ccusto m ed to the nuances ofel ectr oni c fi l i ng. Counsel’s m i sta ke here was the fi rs t list ed m ist ak e in th e W es te rn D ist ric t’s m an u al. W e r ec en tl y de te r m i ne d in U nited Sta tes v. H a rvey, 516 F. 3d 553, 55 5- 56 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) , thata cri m i nal def endant ti m el y fi l ed hi s no ti ce o fapp ea l wh en he subm i tte d i t e l ectr oni cal l y t o th e cl er k’ s o ffi ce e ven though “the s ubmi ss i o n di d no t co nf o r m t o l o ca l r ul es ”. The dist ri ct c ourt ’ s m anual go ver ni ng el ectr oni c fi l i ng r equir ed that a paper cop y of th e no ti ce o fappealbe f i l e d

. Ha r v e y n e g l e c t e d th i s s t e p b u tc o r r e c t e d the m i st ak e o nc e th e cl er k ’ s o ffi ce b r o ug htit t o hi s at te nti on, and he fi l ed a paper copy of the n ot ice ( al though it t oo k h im tw o m on th s t o d o s o ) . T h e Se c on d C irc u it addr es sed a s i m i l arf ac tu als i tu at i o n i n Cont i no v. U nited Sta tes , 5 35 F

. 3d 12 4, 1 26

- 27( 2d Ci r . 2 00 8) , a g r ee i ng wi th o u r r e a s o n i n gi n H a rvey . Counsel ’ s f ai l ure to el ectr o ni ca l l y t r an smi t Vi nc e’ s n oti ce o fa ppea l wi ththe p ro p er ev en t c od e w as an err or off o r m , j u st as in H a rvey a nd Cont i no . Co m pareKl e m m v. As t r ue, 54 3 F

. 3d 1139 , 11 41- 44 ( 9th Ci r. 20 08) ( noti ce o fappe alfi l ed w i thi n appeal p er iod tho ugh i n paper f or m r atherthan el ectr oni cal l y, co ntra ryto l oca l r ule s, and acco m panie d b y a p os td at ed ch ec k, w as re jec te d by th e c ler k, bu t d id not de feat ap p ell ate j urisd iction).N o. 10

- 1659 5 Earl i er, i n addressing the date ofa com pla i nt’ s fi l i ng, w e c oncluded that a n el ectr oni c fi l i ng sy ste m “m ust accept eve rydocu m ent t endered f orfi l i ng. ” Farzana v. Indi ana D epar t m e ntof Educ at i on , 473 F .3d 70 3, 70 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)

. I n tha t ca se , we det er m i ne d tha t a co m p lai nt is t im ely filed ev en th ou gh th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s e lec tr on ic fi l i ng sy ste m r ej ecte d i t due to an e rr ori n the docket number, o bs er vi ng“ [ t] he s o ftwa r e th ato per at es a n e - fi l i ng s y s t e m a c t s f o r ‘ the c l e r k ’ a s f a r a s R ul e 5 i s c o nc e r ne d; a s tep f orbi dd en to a perso n sta nd i ng ata counter i s e q u all y f orbi dd en to an a utom ate d agent that acts o n the c o ur t ’ s b e ha l f

. ” Farzana , 473 F.3d at70 7. A cco rd R o ya ll v. Na tio na l A ssoc ia ti o n o f L etter C a rriers , 54 8 F

. 3d 137, 14 0- 43 ( D.C. Ci r. 20 08) , ci ting Farzana . There m ay w el l be case s in w h ich a fi l i ng i s s o ri dd l ed w i th er ro rs tha t it c annot f ai rl y b e co nsi dered a noti ce o f a p p eal, and therefore its fil ing, electron ic or oth erwi se , wi l l no t vest a n appe l l at e co ur t wi thj ur i sdi ct i o n, U n it ed St ates v. Ca re lock, 45 9 F

. 3d 437 ( 3d Cir

. 20 06) ( an el ectr oni cal l y fi l ed noti ce of appeal that bor e inco rr ect nam e o fdefendant, wrong dock et num ber, wrong di str i ct c ou rtj u d ge ’s n am e, an d w ro n g jud gm en t d at e n o t s u ffici ent) , but th at i s no t the ca se here

. W e co ncl ud e that Vi nc e’ s appe ali s ti m el y . Co uns elpr ac ti ci ngi n the f edera l co urts to day would be w el l advi sed to pay close atten tion to the ir electron ic transm issi ons , so t h at errors in ele c tr on ic filin g d o n ot ad ve rs ely a f f e c t o n e o f th eir case s. Other w i se, co unsel m ay fi nd that“ ‘ a co m pu terl ets yo u m ak e m or e m ist ak es fas t er th an an y in ve n tio n in hu m an history

— wi th the p o s s ib l e e xc e pt i o ns o fh a nd

gu n s a n d te q u ila’ ”, as Ju d ge A ld ise rtob se rv ed in6 N o. 10

- 1659 C arel ock, 4 59 F. 3d at 443 ( ci tat i on o m i tte d), quoti ng a not so ol d adage.

5- 3- 10