Opinion ID: 524972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Favors' Jury Trial Demand

Text: 3 We first hold that Favors waived his right to a jury trial. Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules requires that a party makes a demand for a jury trial and timely serve such demand upon the opposing party. Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(b). While failure to timely serve the jury trial demand constitutes a waiver ... of trial by jury, Fed.R.Civ.P. 38(d), we have consistently held that waiver of such a fundamental right is not lightly to be inferred. Gargiulo v. Delsole, 769 F.2d 77, 79 (2d Cir.1985). Nor have we required that the jury demand be technically perfect or unequivocal on the face of the pleadings. Gargiulo, 769 F.2d at 78-79 (but noting that the recommended practice is to write the demand on the first page of the pleading). Moreover, the pleadings for pro se plaintiffs alleging civil rights violations are treated with greater liberality. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 596, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972) (per curiam) (pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers). 4 In filing his complaint, Favors duly filled out the civil cover sheet on his pro se complaint form and checked the Yes box next to Jury Demand. The civil cover sheet, of course, is merely an administrative aid to the court clerk, and is therefore not typically considered part of a litigant's pleading papers. But here, appellant failed to serve, as he might have, the civil cover sheet in timely fashion on appellees. Only the complaint was served and it contained no mention of or reference to a jury demand. A timely served civil cover sheet on which the Jury Demand box is checked can, without more, constitute a proper jury trial demand, see Winant v. Carefree Pools, 118 F.R.D. 28, 29 (E.D.N.Y.1988), but a civil cover sheet that has not been served with the complaint naturally gives no notice of a jury demand necessary to meet the requirements of Rule 38(b). See Moores v. Greenberg, 834 F.2d 1105, 1108 (1st Cir.1987) (notation of jury demand on civil cover sheet does not satisfy the literal requirements of Rule 38(b).); Pinemont Bank v. Belk, 722 F.2d 232, 235 (5th Cir.1984) (we ... caution all counsel [that checking the civil cover sheet] is not the preferred method of compliance with rule 38(b)....); Wall v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 718 F.2d 906, 909 (9th Cir.1983) (holding that checking the jury demand box on the civil cover sheet is insufficient to meet the requirements of Rule 38(b).); Omawale v. WBZ, 610 F.2d 20, 21-22 (1st Cir.1979) (per curiam) (holding that, even in the context of a pro se action under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, an unserved civil cover sheet indicating a jury demand cannot alone comport with Fed.R.Civ.P. 38); Biesenkamp v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 70 F.R.D. 365, 366 (E.D.Pa.1976) (The mere notation on the Cover Sheet and in the docket cannot substitute for service of notice upon the Defendants as required by the rule.). The rule that pro se plaintiffs' pleadings must be less stringently construed cannot overcome the appellant's actual failure to notify appellees of his jury trial demand. Hence, because appellant did not comply with Rule 38 he waived his right to trial by a jury.