Document: 127 S. Ct. 2360 (2007) Keith BOWLES, Petitioner, v. Harry RUSSELL, Warden. No. 06-5306. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 26, 2007. Decided June 14, *2362 Paul Mancino, Jr., Cleveland, Ohio, for Petitioner. William P. Marshall, Chapel Hill, NC, Respondent. Malcolm L. Stewart, States as amicus curiae, by special leave the Court, supporting Marc Dann, Attorney General Elise W. Porter, Acting Solicitor General, Stephen Carney, Robert J. Krummen, Elizabeth T. Scavo, Columbus, OH, Respondent Russell, III, Brett Justice THOMAS delivered opinion Court. In this case, a District purported to extend party's time filing an appeal beyond period allowed statute. We must decide whether Appeals had jurisdiction entertain filed after statutory but within Court's order. have long and repeatedly held that limits notice are jurisdictional in nature. Accordingly, we hold petitioner's untimely noticeeven though reliance upon order deprived jurisdiction. I 1999, Ohio jury convicted petitioner Bowles murder his involvement beating death Ollie Gipson. The sentenced 15 years life imprisonment. unsuccessfully challenged conviction sentence on direct appeal. then federal habeas corpus application September 5, 2002. On 9, 2003, denied relief. After entry final judgment, 30 days file Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(1)(A); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). He failed do so. December 12, moved reopen during which he could pursuant 4(a)(6), allows district courts 14 from day court grants order reopen, provided certain conditions met. See 2107(c). February 10, 2004, granted Bowles' motion. But rather than extending days, 4(a)(6) 2107(c) allow, inexplicably gave 17 daysuntil 27to 26within order, 14-day appeal, respondent Russell argued was therefore lacked hear case. agreed. It first recognized has consistently requirement timely is "mandatory jurisdictional." 432 F.3d 668, 673 (C.A.6 2005) (citing Browder Director, Dept. Corrections Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 556, 54 Ed. 2d 521 (1978)). also noted appeals uniformly 4(a)(6)'s 180-day *2363 motion mandatory not susceptible equitable modification. F.3d, at (collecting cases). Concluding "the fourteen-day should be treated strictly same Rule," id., 676, it without certiorari, 549 ___, 763, 166 590 (2006), now affirm. II According 2107(a), parties notices judgment being appealed. limited authority grant extension 30-day period. Relevant if met, motions additional days. 4 Federal Rules Appellate Procedure carries 2107 into practice. accord with 2107(c), describes court's lapse usual days: "(6) Reopening Time File Appeal. "The may date when its entered, only all following satisfied: "(A) 180 or entered 7 moving party receives entry, whichever earlier; "(B) finds entitled sought appealed did receive any 21 entry; "(C) no would prejudiced." (Emphasis added.)[1] undisputed case more Thus, question before us outside window longer A This taking prescribed Griggs Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 56, 61, 103 400, 74 225 (1982) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted);[2] accord, Hohn *2364 States, 524 236, 247, 118 1969, 141 242 (1998); Torres Oakland Scavenger 487 312, 314-315, 108 2405, 101 285 (1988); Browder, supra, 556. Indeed, even prior creation circuit appeals, regarded limitations timing own Scarborough Pargoud, 567, 568, 2 877, 27 824 (1883) ("[T]he writ error brought law, consequently jurisdiction"); Curry, 6 How. 106, 113, 12 363 (1848) ("[A]s been prosecuted manner directed, acts Congress, dismissed want jurisdiction"). Reflecting consistency holdings, routinely dismiss lack See, e.g., Atkins Medical Augusta Cty. Jail, 06-7792, 2007 WL 1048810 (C.A.4, Apr.4, 2007) (unpublished); see 15A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Practice 3901, p. (2d ed. 1992) ("The rule well settled failure defeats appeals"). fact, author today's dissent recently reiterated "[t]he accepted fact some expressed separate section grants, see, ... (providing civil cases `within thirty such judgment')." Barnhart Peabody Coal 537 149, 160, n. 6, 123 748, 154 653 (2003) (majority SOUTER, J., joined STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., inter alios) (citation omitted). Although several our recent decisions undertaken clarify distinction between claims-processing rules rules, none them calls longstanding treatment jurisdictional. those significance limitation set forth Kontrick Ryan, 540 443, 124 906, 157 867 (2004), comply Bankruptcy 4004 affect subject-matter Critical analysis "[n]o statute specifies limit complaint objecting debtor's discharge." U.S., 448, 906. Rather, deadlines "`procedural adopted orderly transaction business'" "`not jurisdictional.'" Id., 454, 906 (quoting Schacht 398 58, 64, 90 1555, 26 44 (1970)). Because "[o]nly Congress determine lower jurisdiction," 452, Const., Art. 1), improper use term `jurisdictional' describe emphatic prescriptions court," Eberhart 546 126 403, 163 (2005) curiam). As point contrast, *2365 contains type constraints 453, 8, 906.[3] Nor Arbaugh Y H Corp., 500, 1235, 1097 Principi, 541 401, 1856, 158 674 aid petitioner. Arbaugh, employee-numerosity requirement, limit. 505, 1235. Scarborough, addressed availability attorney's fees under Equal Access Act, concerned "a mode relief... ancillary court" already plenary 413, 1856. certiorari demonstrates court-promulgated enacted Congress. Rules, petition reviewed. 13.1. That 90-day applies both criminal cases. derives 13.1 2101(c). statute-based Election Comm'n NRA Political Victory Fund, 513 88, 90, 115 537, 130 439 (1994). 13.2 cites 2101(c) directing Clerk "that jurisdictionally out time." added.) other hand, rule-based differently, stating waived because procedural business can relaxed exercise discretion ...." Schacht, 1555.[4] Jurisdictional makes good sense. Within constitutional bounds, decides what consider. all, when, conditions, them. How., 363. Put another way, notion "`subject-matter'" obviously extends "`classes falling adjudicatory authority,'" *2366 Eberhart, 16, 403 Kontrick, 455, 906), less "jurisdictional" forbids adjudicating otherwise legitimate "class cases" elapsed judgment. resolution follows naturally reasoning. Like initial how statute, specifically amount notice-of-appeal simple "claim-processing rule." held, "appeal jurisdiction." 113. accordance And one magnitude, cannot rely forfeiture waiver excuse compliance statute's limitations. 513-514, B contends satisfies "unique circumstances" doctrine, roots Harris Truck Lines, Inc. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 215, 83 283, 9 261 (1962) There, then-Rule 73(a) Civil Procedure, entertained found established showing "excusable neglect," required Rule, reversed finding excusable neglect and, accordingly, extension. 303 F.2d 609, 611-612 (C.A.7 1962). reversed, noting obvious great hardship who relies trial judge's `excusable neglect.'" 217, 283. Today make clear requirement. create exceptions requirements, doctrine illegitimate. Given applied Lines once last half century, Thompson INS, 375 384, 84 397, 11 404 (1964) curiam), rightly questioned continuing validity. Panhorst 241 367, (C.A.4 2001) (doubting continued viability unique circumstances doctrine"). Houston Lack, 266, 282, 2379, 245 (1988) (SCALIA, dissenting) ("Our later cases... effectively repudiate approach ..."). Osterneck Ernst Whinney, 489 169, 170, 109 987, 146 (1989) (referring so-called `unique circumstances' exception" requirement). compelling reason resurrect 40-year slumber. reject overrule extent they purport authorize exception rule. *2367 C If rigorous like today thought inequitable, promulgate limits. Even narrow effect give rise litigation testing their reach doubt detract clarity However, congressionally authorized rulemaking likely lead court-created authorization. events, reasons discussed above, present seeks. III correctly consider affirmed. so ordered. whom BREYER join, dissenting. told due 27, 2004. too late deadline actually 24. intolerable judicial system treat people there technical justification condoning bait switch. respectfully dissent. "`Jurisdiction,'" warned times decade, "`is word many, meanings.'" Steel Co. Citizens Better Environment, 523 83, 1003, 140 210 (1998) Vanness, 85 661, 663, (C.A.D.C.1996)); (2004) Co.); 510, (2006) Rockwell Int'l Corp. 1397, 1405, 167 190 Co.). variety meaning insidiously tempted courts, included, engage "less meticulous," sometimes "profligate term," years, however, tried clean up language, until avoiding erroneous conclusions flow indiscriminate ambiguous word. although used call sort issue here jurisdictional," Robinson, 361 220, 229, 80 259 (1960), corrected designation misuse "jurisdiction" label. 1235 Robinson example "jurisdiction"); 17-18, (same); (same). never guess reading suddenly restores Robinson's jurisdictional" label law face three unanimous repudiations error. ante, 2363-2364. puzzling, (and, repeat, unanimous) efforts confine rulings proper were sound, majority attempt show not.[1] *2368 stakes high treating While nonjurisdictional enforceable insistence claiming benefit judge docket, mitigated exercising reasonable discretion. taken jurisdictional, becomes impossible, meritorious irrelevant (unless provides), sua sponte consideration mandatory, 514, 1235.[2] recognizes, 2364-2365, way regard ("Only neither automatic statutory, Generally speaking, statutes, nontemporal ones, says so: "when does rank coverage restriction character." 516, prescriptions, however emphatic, `are properly typed "jurisdictional,"'" 414, (2004)), absent put tag here.[3] *2369 doctrinal underpinning repeated view Kontrick: [is appropriate] claim-processing delineating classes (subject-matter jurisdiction) persons (personal authority." paradigm rule, delineation hear, falls class subject matter unless otherwise.[4] here, far defining adjudicated, much limitations, provides affirmative defense, Civ. 8(c), Day McDonough, 547 198, 205, 1675, 164 376 (2006). Statutes thus waived, 207-208, excused tolling, alleviate unfairness, Irwin Department Veterans Affairs, 498 89, 95-96, 111 112 435 (1990). Consistent traditional statutes carefully concept explained available one, ago. 387, failures involved errors misled litigants believing provided. back thoughtlessly called exemption shrugging inequity penalizing relying said him. Since dishonor official *2370 uncritically unfair, unsupportable now, disavowing apply avoids clashing overruling ground "slumber," 2366, inconsistency time-limit-as-jurisdictional rule.[5] eliminating precedents underscores become principal case: why refuse come terms steady stream statements past four culminating Arbaugh's summary year ago? begs refusing confront said: "in decisions, clarified "jurisdictional."'" 1856). statement preceding stands summation, "some dicta," 2363-2364, 2, ignored made where limit, 2364-2365. By refusal grips considered leaves incoherent. ruling depend Judge, recent, repeated, participating Justices Yet incongruously, these pronouncements along two cases,[6] jettisoned leading stare decisis, 2363-2364 ("This recognize certainly seems judge.[7] Bowles, though, convince impression justified, look know ought prevail. would-be appellant, Thompson, post-trial 52(b) 59(b) (1964), nonetheless "specifically declared `motion new trial' `in ample time.'" 385, 397. relied 60 denial original Only affected 60-day *2371 untimely. vacated "relied assumedly old deadline." control. resulted court, caused evident prejudice party. Actually, difference mistaken timely; blue, top mistake specific timely. anything, work Bowles's favor. Why rewarded introduced error, punish merely trusted statement?[8] Under answer say trust unreasonable counsel checked arithmetic. 10-day pellucid came way. more, uncovered simply counting off calendar. [the court's] entered." 2107(c)(2) (allowing reopening "14 entry"). dated reveals signed necessarily entered. lawyer tell received mail, signed. possibility delayed theoretical: July 28. (District docket). lawyer, electronic access docket unavailable time, learn go courthouse check. Tr. Oral Arg. 56-57. Surely equity demands, every tagged warning "Beware Judge," obligation behind received. admit probably think might different *2372 just given correct, nothing trusting. side let pass objection, either caring enough fuss noticing discrepancy; few ring alarm bell send copy check docket.[9] wrong opposing flagged actual facts, facially plausible judge. vacate decision remand merits. NOTES [1] amended, effective 1, 2005, require 77(d). substance unchanged. [2] ultimately proposition notes, "jurisdictional." Post, 2367 (opinion J.) criticizing infra, pointed deserving treatment. Infra, Additionally, reaching holding, dissent's rhetoric ignoring reasoning unfounded. Regardless careless terminology, indisputable American over century. Consequently, repudiation century's worth precedent practice courts. choice calling dicta opinions practice, former option prudent course. [3] At least "called question" "longstanding assumption" Sadler, 480 932, 935 (C.A.9 2007). inflexible timeliness drawn turns largely grounded statute." 936. [4] minimizes argument, understood imprecisely." 2369, 4. apathy surprising relic severe consequences. Just months ago, Clerk, 13.2, refused accept submitted Ryan Heath Dickson late. letter sent Dickson's counsel, "[w]hen expired, power review petition." Letter K. Suter, Ronald Spriggs (Dec. 28, 2006). executed April 2007, Member having seen certiorari. rejected speculate foregone conclusion. thinks my fellow dissenters forgetful wrote others referred 2107(a) 2364 (2003)). reference perfect confusion entire spent repudiating Kontrick. My believe right correct course; majority, will deliberately changed course, alone explain changing course again. raise issues further ill effects decision. cause." logic, extension, extension's propriety unopposed throughout, suspect meant it. answers footnote illustration Ante, 2364-2365 ("[W]e 906"). What overlooks, post-Kontrick character 30-(or 60)-day pronounced (1978). respect undercut decided cited (along relies) basic confusing responsible. Compare (1998)), examples imprecise language). followed summarized body "clarified Members eliminated precludes points affixed contained petitions 2364-2366 (1994); 13.2). Of initially imprecisely. status express sufficient observation consequences context, 2365, 4, support argument instead shows too, reconsidered light clarifications sorts [5] With apparent sense irony, "`[o]ur approach.'" 2366 dissenting); omission original). "later Griggs, Houston, themselves repudiated, "effectively" explicitly, Eberhart. 3, supra. [6] Three, include Wolfsohn Hankin, 203, 699, 636 [7] member Judiciary, help orders reasonable. O. Holmes, Natural Law, Collected Legal Papers 311 (1920). rest better knowing innocent jeopardize anyone's rights absolutely necessary. [8] Nothing (1989), requires strange Osterneck, described applicable "only performed act which, done, postpone assurance officer done." 179, 987. making lawyer's assured him assurance, take Osterneck's language context buttress fundamentally unfair front Cf. St. Mary's Honor Center Hicks, 509 502, 515, 113 2742, 125 407 (1993) generally undesirable, holdings issue, dissect sentences Reports Code"). [9] glance seem wait penultimate easy needed extra time. oral starts clock record, 6(b)(2)(B), turn brief, 31(a)(1), reasonably possible. 6. plans ahead, lawyer.

Category: 8