Opinion ID: 6327329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Paratransit Segregation

Text: Gustafson also contends the district court erred when it determined that he did not seek leave to amend his complaint to add a paratransit segregation claim before summary judgment. Gustafson asserts he sought leave to amend but the request was denied as futile. In response, Bi-State argues we lack jurisdiction because Gustafson’s notice of appeal did not designate the order on his motion to amend his complaint. In his reply brief, Gustafson asserts that “all issues are within the scope of the notice of appeal” because the designated final judgment and order granting summary judgment “overtly take[] issue with the intertwined” order denying leave to amend. 3 To the extent Gustafson alleges Bi-State failed to provide him meaningful access to its signage, announcements, website, and mobile application, we need not address those claims. An appellant’s brief must contain “a concise statement of the case setting out the facts relevant to the issues submitted for review.” FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(6). “To be reviewable, an issue must be presented in the brief with some specificity. Failure to do so can result in waiver.” Meyers v. Starke, 420 F.3d 738, 743 (8th Cir. 2005). In his brief, Gustafson identified the issue but failed to set forth the facts and circumstances relevant to his claim sufficient for our consideration. We therefore consider the question to be waived. -8- As a prerequisite for jurisdiction, an appellant must file a notice of appeal that “designate[s] the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” Hallquist v. United Home Loans, Inc., 715 F.3d 1040, 1044 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting FED. R. APP. P. 3(c)(1)(B)). We have “held on numerous occasions that a notice which manifests an appeal from a specific district court order or decision precludes an appellant from challenging an order or decision that he or she failed to identify in the notice.” Parkhill v. Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 286 F.3d 1051, 1058 (8th Cir. 2002). Our circuit has “a policy of liberal construction of notices of an appeal in situations where intent is apparent and there is no prejudice to the adverse party.” Spectra Commc’ns Group, LLC v. City of Cameron, Mo., 806 F.3d 1113, 1118 (8th Cir. 2015). For example, an “intent to appeal” may be “apparent from the procedural history of the case and the inclusion of the orders on the appeal information form,” Berdella v. Delo, 972 F.2d 204, 208 (8th Cir. 1992), or when the amended complaint expressly reserved the right to appeal the dismissal of a claim and the parties addressed the merits in their briefs, Spectra, 806 F.3d at 1118. Here, however, the notice of appeal expressly references only the summary judgment order and judgment, stating “Gustafson hereby appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the Final Judgment [ECF Nos. 143, 144] entered in this action on August 27, 2020.” The notice of appeal does not identify the order denying Gustafson’s motion to amend his complaint for a fifth time (i.e., Docket No. 109), and there is no apparent intent to appeal this order. The appeal information form likewise does not mention the order denying Gustafson’s motion to amend. Gustafson has not expressly reserved the right to appeal the denial of his motion to amend his complaint, nor has he complied with FED. R. APP. P. 3(c)(1)(B). We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Gustafson’s motion to amend the complaint. Parkhill, 286 F.3d at 1059. -9-