Document: 466 U.S. 147 104 S.Ct. 1723 80 L.Ed.2d 196 BALDWIN COUNTY WELCOME CENTERv.Celinda BROWN. No. 83-181. Supreme Court of the United States April 16, 1984. Rehearing Denied June 4, PER CURIAM. 1 On November 6, 1979, respondent Celinda Brown filed a complaint with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging discriminatory treatment by her former employer, petitioner Baldwin County Welcome Center (Welcome Center). A notice right to sue was issued on January 27, 1981. It stated that if chose commence civil action "such suit must be in appropriate District within ninety days [her] receipt this Notice."1 Later, mailed Court, where it received March 17, 1981.2 In addition, she requested appointment counsel. 2 15, 1981, Magistrate entered an order requiring make application for court-appointed counsel using Court's motion form and supporting questionnaire. The Magistrate's reminded necessity filing 90 issuance right-to-sue letter. questionnaire not returned until May 96th day after next day, denied Brown's because had timely complied his orders, but he referred Judge question whether letter court constituted commencement meaning Rule 3 Federal Rules Civil Procedure. 9, 130th letter, "amended complaint," which served 18. December 24, held forfeited pursue claim under Title VII Rights Act 1964 failure file meeting requirements 8 Procedure noted did qualify as there no statement factual basis discrimination, is required Rule. 4 Appeals Eleventh Circuit reversed, 698 F.2d 1236, holding "tolls" time period provided VII. Judgment reported at 1236 (1983). Although conceding its interpretation "generous," "[t]he remedial nature statute requires such interpretation." then "satisfied statutory limitation." 5 petitioned writ certiorari from Court. We grant petition reverse judgment Appeals. 6 section issue here states "a may brought against named charge." 86 Stat. 106, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). "[a] commenced court." contain, inter alia, short plain showing pleader entitled relief." Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 8(a)(2). satisfy standard. expressly disagree, nevertheless 90-day invoking court's jurisdiction satisfied, apparently concluding policies behind mandate different definition when "commenced."3 However, identified or legislative history, cited decision suggested persuasive justification view were have in, apply to, litigation. Because we also can find satisfactory giving actions special status Procedure, disagree conclusion Appeals.4 7 With respect apparent alternative "tolled" principle equity support conclusion.5 does little better, relying only asserted "diligent efforts." Nor do anything record call doctrine equitable tolling. itself days. Also, informed "to safe, you should before ninetieth EEOC informing your sue." Finally, 15 again limitation. 9 This case claimant has inadequate notice, see Gates v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 492 292 (CA9 1974); pending would justify tolling acted upon, Harris Walgreen's Distribution Center, 456 588 (CA6 1972); led plaintiff believe done everything her, Carlile South Routt School RE 3-J, 652 981 (CA10 1981). affirmative misconduct part defendant lulled into inaction. See Villasenor Lockheed Aircraft, 640 207 1981); Wilkerson Siegfried Insurance Agency, Inc., 621 1042 1980); Leake University Cincinnati, 605 255 1979). simple fact told three times what preserve claim, it. One who fails act diligently cannot invoke principles excuse lack diligence. 10 contends demonstrated prejudiced comply Rules.6 argument unavailing. absence prejudice factor considered determining once might identified, independent sanctioning deviations established procedures. 11 Procedural Congress gaining access federal courts are disregarded out vague sympathy particular litigants. As Mohasco Corp. Silver, 447 807, 826, 100 2486, 2497, 65 532 (1980), "[i]n long run, experience teaches strict adherence procedural specified legislature best guarantee evenhanded administration law." 12 granted, respondent's proceed forma pauperis reversed. 13 so ordered. 14 Justice STEVENS, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. Whenever acts summarily, increased risk will mistake. Without benefit full briefs oral argument, important escape our attention. decides today involves possible violations two limitations imposed Congress. first jurisdictional limitation—simply escapes attention Court; second, subject tolling, misapplied review cursory. 16 Like I am firmly convinced " 'in law,' ante, 152 (quoting (1980)). not, however, follow teaching case. rather necessary explain extent departure controlling requirements. 17 * charged employer discriminated account race (EEOC). ultimately sent dated more than 180 elapsed since assumed jurisdiction, suit, specifically regarding "Charge Against 042800149." Record 1. part: 18 "If choose action, Notice. If unable retain attorney, authorized discretion appoint attorney represent authorize without payment fees, costs, security. appointed should, well expiration above period, take Notice, along any correspondence Department Commission, Clerk Montgomery." Ibid. (emphasis original). 19 called Clerk's office Montgomery, Alabama. Pursuant conversation, immediately correspondence, request Id., 1-3, 5. 18, Deputy respondent, telling "you wish matter" sign notarized enclosed (ifp) affidavit return forms "immediately matter." 4. include other documents concerning matter. 21, ifp typed onto attorney. 13. She marked "Counselor Attorney & Clerk" made claim. 10-12. Though portion relevant language—perhaps significant language—is missing copy contained record, alleged caused fired, described harm (after language) ". . worked job. None workers subjected type hardship inconveniences," "another example how ill treated." 11. At end note "I asking seeking monetary damages, damages my credit ratings, character, intellect, whatever justice behalf. Thank You!" 12. docketed 30. Varner granted leave 20 sua sponte transferred Southern Alabama obvious him convenient all parties. 15. He case, captioned Misc. 1324, pursuant 28 1404(a), permits district transfer "civil action" been brought. following explaining "case" transferred, further stating "the law" date "petition" transferee court. 16. "some occasions" written requesting could "your relief time," petition" period. calling "attention asked attorney." situation. language 21 now Action 81-0241-H, Magistrate, "order" "plaintiff" "appear soon practicable" complete counsel, stating: "Plaintiff (90) Notice Right Sue, essence." 17. completed "well advance" time, "because lawsuit necessarily drafted lawyer advance case." Thus, continued, "in reasoned denied, indicated event, hence "plaintiff advised approach Legal Services Corporation legal aid own obtain representation." 2, filled another affidavit, signed accompanying information sheet, stamped 6. 19-23. explained contacted Tennessee, Florida offices, "and their response they up cases." 23. 22 7, observed outset applicable Fifth cases, consider 23 'the merits plaintiff's efforts financial ability counsel.' 24 "In doing Courts 'be sensitive problems faced pro se litigants innovative responses them.' 25 "From array factors, one: counsel,' namely, 1981." 25-26 (footnotes citing cases omitted). 26 After display sensitivity encountered litigants, limitation jurisdictional, Prophet Armco Steel, 575 579 (CA5 1978), turned "next untimely compliance analyzing question, sketched history noting opined: "To say least clear 'case' not." (footnote notwithstanding order, weeks—almost week 90th day. concluded: 27 'filing court' 'complaint' amended. course, lawsuit. That one judge. either DENIED 29. 29 appearance behalf complaint." Ifp Hand, amended fewer facts contain many conclusions, assertions, citations, asserting claims 2000e among statutes constitutional provisions. also, denominated complaint. Hence, summons finally issued, 39-40. State Bureau Publicity Information, agency operated answer July 8, "reserv[ing] present Statute Limitations bar discovery reveal 'right [s]ue' letter." 42. Discovery commenced, trial scheduled 1982. 46-47. 30 sponte, though obtaining briefing parties, id., 72, Hand outset: 31 "The employment-discrimination U.S.C., merely Justice. For reasons below, holds 200[0]e-5(f)(1)." 67. 32 found "especially wholly indicate upon discrimination based," "sole function notify chooses 'such [S] tates Notice.' "crystal clear" indicating step" action," "plain 2000e-5(f)(1) Fed.R.Civ.P. demonstrate equivalent 68. 33 confronted conflicting authority it: Wrenn American Cast Iron Pipe Co., 544 1978) (holding presenting satisfies period) (opinion Roney, J.); supra, (per curiam) (stating "complaint" days); Nilsen City Moss Point, 117 1980) "commenced" days) J). latter suggest respective plaintiffs presented letters viewed representing "better view" concluded "[a]t very minimum, accusatory instrument rests," meets receiving ." noted, time-barred, pretried 13, 1982, originally scheduled. 34 5, App.Proc. 5(a), permitting interlocutory appeal 1292(b), law "whether tolls 2000e-5(f)(1)." 70. stayed proceedings acted. 71. issues 76, 77. framed follows: "Whether 35 Then, nothing happened. Nothing happened 10-day 1292(b) Appellate 5(a). September 29, 1982—nine months certified—respondent moved supplement" previous permit time-barred. Petitioner opposed motion, Labor Council Alabama, 453 922 1972), 26(b), Fed.Rules 60(b), precluding enlargement appeal. 36 reentered October Aparicio Swan Lake, 643 1109 1981) new 86. Respondent Circuit, viewing Circuit's binding Bonner Prichard, 661 1206 (CA11 (en banc), permission Record, Doc. 2. submitted 1983, four later reversed four-page unpublished opinion Wrenn. Petitioner's rehearing, February 11th Cir., 704 1253, member vote suggestion rehearing en banc. 37 7. respond petition, brief opposition 22, 1983. summarily reverses relating sketch II 38 threshold addressed determine appellate over raising (ignoring effect respondent) certified (notwithstanding arising same nucleus operative time-barred set trial). 39 5(a) require settled limit mandatory jurisdictional.1 enlarged, circumvented simply reentering sole purpose extending petition. There conflict Circuits compare, e.g., Woods Baltimore Ohio R. 441 407, 408 1971) curiam), Nakhleh Chemical Construction 366 F.Supp. 1221, 1222-1223 (SDNY 1973), F.2d, 1110-1113; Nuclear Engineering Co. Scott, 660 241, 245-248 (CA7 (describing "rather thorny" one, 245, observing common most point "is re-enter certification enlarge original due solely mere neglect counsel," 246.) Cert. sub nom. Fahner, 455 993, 102 1622, 71 855 (1982); Braden Pittsburgh, 552 948, 949-955 (CA3 1977) banc) (distinguishing suggesting dictum disagreement those cases); generally J. Moore, B. Ward, Lucas, Moore's Practice ¶ 205.03[2], pp. 5-8 5-11 (1983); C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, Gressman, 3929, 153-155, 3951, p. 369 (1977); Note, Interlocutory Under 88 Harv.L.Rev. 607, 615-616 (1975). course duty recognize kind sponte. 40 quite instant recertified nine petitioning expired otherwise While think close decide summary fashion, concur majority's jurisdiction. presently persuaded view, supported commentators, appeals these circumstances permitted, essentially renders limitation, nullity, extend will. III 41 engage task identifying source failures observe Legislature fair failed acting se, largely speaks itself. likelihood ended 1982 bench scheduled, indefinitely litigate seem relevance 19th-century schooled technical pleading 20th-century judge whose rule achieve jst, speedy, inexpensive termination initially ruled never majority seems agree U.S., 811, n. S.Ct., 2490 and, 9; cf. Zipes Trans World Airlines, 385, 1127, 234 (1982), forth defense 8(c) (though "reserved" so) nor dismiss 12(b), erred dismissing Even complaint—the filed. document "filed" treated practical purposes exception failing trigger summons. But respondent. Certainly declined treat "merely label" "for exalt nomenclature substance." Browder Director, Illinois Corrections, 434 257, 272, 98 556, 565, 54 521 (1978) (BLACKMUN, J., joined REHNQUIST, concurring); Schlesinger Councilman, 420 738, 742, 95 1300, 1305, 43 591 rights claiming racial able grasp talismanic significance labeling "complaint," perhaps "petition," use Varner, mechanically summons, 4(a), definite 12(e) adequately serve modern-day pleading. needed statement. "do detail bases To contrary, 'short claim' give grounds rests." Conley Gibson, 355 41, 47, 78 99, 103, (1957) absurd reject game skill misstep decisive outcome accept facilitate proper merits." 48, 103. Missteps plaintiffs, seem, easily ignored. 44 8(f) provides "[a]ll pleadings shall construed substantial justice." frequently given liberal construction. E.g., Haines Kerner, 404 519, 92 594, (1972). pronouncements meaning, protect litigant properly denominate terms used Rules. wonders thinks there. 45 therefore conclude strictly followed case—Rules eschew sterile formalism permeated Court—the presented. answered albeit precedential significance, rushes opinion, ignoring even incorrect, reversing correct.2 IV 46 tells us "identified litigation." Ante, 149-150. Of below inapplicable litigation, sure so. What hold created tolled 47 rejects Appeals, erred. Instead, seemingly assumes indicates offers "unpersuasive" justification. ignores Eighth decisions Huston General Motors 477 1003, 1006-1008 (1973), Wingfield Goodwill Industries, 666 1177, 1179, (1981). 48 basic whether, facts, tolled, 'of intent enforceable prescribed time.' Burnett New York Central 380 424, 426, 85 1050, 1053, 941 (1965). congressional intent, examine underlying provision, itself, scheme developed enforcement Act." 427, 1054. filed" lacks personal defendant, "that shows desire begin thereby toll apply. diligence intended insure." Goldlawr, Inc. Heiman, 463, 467, 82 913, 916, (1962). intend impose suits EEOC, unlike ordinary private learn cause service complaint, alerted possibility charge EEOC. Occidental Life 432 355, 372, 97 2447, 2457, 53 402 (1977). Given scheme, exercising reasonable attempting formal limitations. 3; 1978); 1006-1008; 588, 591-592 1972) (motion period); Love Pullman 522, 527, 616, 619, 679 (1972); Sanchez Standard Brands, 431 1970); Pettway 411 998 1969); S.Rep. 92-415, (1971) (noting burden initiating approval supra). 49 "find tolling." 151. Such assertion reduced few conclusory statements. safe," reading entire yield draft lawsuit," paraphrase order. much well. 50 "not tolled." 151, deciding unpublished, clarity surprising. All reviewing specific it, entering is, Wrenn, relied, leaves ample room dismissals slumber rights. See, Potts 524 513 (ND Ga.1981). 51 end, dismissal amounted sanction refile correct quickly enough Magistrate. amounts more, "was it." care. 52 respectfully dissent. presumed 30, 6(e). Middle events rise occurred Neither parties 15(c) complaint" 9. amendment "relates back" rationale party notified litigation occurrence provide. 15.15[3], 15-194 (1984). intricately detailed description relief, "give 102, (1957). initial "pleading" rehabilitated 15(c). STEVENS makes describes Suffice dissent relied sustain position. rely affirming judgment. action. based ground. assess having views lower instance. suggests solicitous litigant. noteworthy, represented ever tolled. Presumably, "reasonable time" 8. 1003 (CA8 1973). 84 mandated (1982). Zipes, requirement 2000e-5(e) prerequisite waiver merit, declare need satisfied; neither Television Arts, 725 1327, 1330 1984); 1981), cert. 1109, 1111 Local P-171 Thompson Farms 642 1065, 1068 Atkins 597 872, 879 (CA4 1979); 950-951 banc); Cole Tuttle, 540 206, 207, 1976); Hellerstein Mr. Steak, 531 470, 471-472 (CA10), 429 823, 75, (1976); Hanson Hunt Oil 488 70, 72 1973) curiam); 922, 923-925 Liberty Mutual Wetzel, 424 737, 745, 96 1202, 1207, 435 (1978). And, reviews judgments opinions. Black Cutter Laboratories, 351 292, 297, 76 824, 827, L.Ed. 1188 (1956). "Where affirmed tribunal gave wrong reason action." J.E. Riley Investment Commissioner, 311 55, 59, 61 95, 97, (1940). correct, although reasoning, mind conducted deemed unsound, certainly superior Court." Williams Norris, Wheat. 117, 120, 571 (1827). ground professes proceed." McClung Silliman, 598, 603, 340 (1821). Ex parte Royall, 250, 734, 739, 868 (1886). majority, discover uphold below. Yet 2111 commands: "On hearing examination regard errors defects affect parties." assuming statute, Wheat., 118-120, 571, erroneous, reveals error Cf. Torres-Valencia States, 464 ----, ____, (1983) (REHNQUIST, dissenting) ("Summary disposition demonstrably manner incorrect result."). Parties argue finds record. Ryerson 312 405, 408, 656, 658, 917 (1941); LeTulle Scofield, 308 415, 421, 60 313, 316, (1940); Langnes Green, 282 531, 533-539, 243, 244-246, 75 520 (1931). And previously [respondent's] that, exposed [the court] right, Indiana Farmer's Guide Publishing Prairie Farmer 293 268, 281, 55 182, 186, 79 356 (1934). position force involving like involved briefing. Spector, 343 169, 180, 591, 597, 863 (1952) (Jackson, ("It sustained, overlooked rejected. reargued"). certiorari. thus limited merit exercise discretionary Moreover, fallen prey tendency abstract certified, appeals, still correctness always thought appellant establish asserts "never actually took step required, some documentation interpreted Congress," Pet. "[I]t deal disclosed obligation rests counsel." Chapman Dewey Lumber St. Francis Levee Dist., 667, 668, 906, 907, 58 1526 (1914). substance remarkable enters kind, openly contents interest "reverse" bothered examining rendering judgment, vacate remand proceedings.

Category: 8