Opinion ID: 186796
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: This Court's Jurisdiction To Review the Judgment Rendered in Favor of Sergeant Murray

Text: 15 Murray seeks dismissal of the appeal against him on jurisdictional grounds, claiming that appellant failed to file timely notice of appeal. See FED. R.APP. P.3. In particular, he contends that appellant filed two notices of appeal, neither of which purported to appeal the District Court's May 26, 2005 grant of summary judgment in his favor. Therefore, according to Murray, this court lacks jurisdiction, because appellant failed to designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed. FED. R. APP. P. 3(c)(1)(B). 16 Appellant, acting pro se, filed two documents titled Notice of Appeal, one apparently self-created and the other using a court template. Joint Appendix (J.A.) 113-15. The second notice refers to the date of the order of summary judgment in favor of the United States, but by its language appeals from an order in favor of [the] United States of America and the District of Columbia. J.A. 115. This was clearly adequate to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3. 17 In Martinez v. Bureau of Prisons, 444 F.3d 620 (D.C.Cir.2006), we recognized jurisdiction where we could reasonably discern that a would-be appellant wished to appeal multiple orders although his notice of appeal referred only to a single order. The court, cognizant of the fact that appellant was proceeding pro se,  held that his intention to appeal from both rulings of the district court [could] be fairly inferred from his notice of appeal and no appellee [was] prejudiced. Id. at 623. The same is true here. On appeal, Sergeant Murray is represented by the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, who has presented [his] arguments and shown no evidence that [he] would be prejudiced if appellant's challenges to the [May 26, 2005] order were addressed by this court. Id. 18 On the record here, we can easily infer appellant's intent to appeal both orders of the District Court with respect to both current appellees, so Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)(B) does not bar his appeal. See also 16A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER, EDWARD H. COOPER, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3949.4 (3d ed. 1999) (Defects in the wording of the notice of appeal are generally overlooked if the true intentions of the appellant can fairly be ascertained, if the courts have not been misled, and if the other parties have suffered no prejudice.). 19