Document: 478 U.S. 251 106 S.Ct. 2876 92 L.Ed.2d 192 Roland V. ACOSTAv.LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES et al. No. 85-1500. June 30, 1986. Rehearing Denied Sept. 3, See 1036, 107 23. PER CURIAM. 1 In 1981, petitioner filed a civil rights action against respondents. Respondents moved to dismiss, and the District Court dismissed in its entirety. Petitioner filed, then abandoned, an appeal. for award of attorney's fees on ground that had his bad faith. The court granted motion awarded respondents amounting some $19,000. timely alter or amend judgment, as authorized by Federal Rule Civil Procedure 59(e). held hearing denied it from bench. notice appeal same afternoon. Not until two days later, however, was order denying judgment entered docket. did not file new following docket entry. 2 United States Appeals Fifth Circuit petitioner's appeal, ruling prematurely filed. 776 F.2d 1046 (1985). relied Appellate 4(a)(4), which, pertinent part, provides: 3 "If under Rules is district any party . 59 time all parties shall run entry granting such motion. A before disposition above motions have no effect. must be within prescribed measured disposing provided above." 4 concluded because motion, 4(a)(4) required treat "nullity" thus deprived jurisdiction over 5 Circuit's interpretation directly contrary adopted Ninth Calhoun v. States, 647 6 (1981). There, Rule's command "[a] [a motion] effect," render after announcement decision but nullity. Rather, term "disposition" used rule synonymous with "announcement"; accordingly, could given effect long trial court's ruling. this justified "the policy 'exercising proper means prevent loss valuable when validity challenged something done too late, rather soon.' " Id., at 10 (quoting Williams Town Okoboji, 599 238, 239-240 (CA8 1979)). reasoned if were deemed defective, "valuable [might] lost important, ministerial, act performed expected." F.2d, 11. Because direct conflict calls resolution Court, we grant petition writ certiorari.* Finding issue one requires plenary consideration, now affirm Appeals. 7 Unlike Calhoun, below comports plain wording Rules. specifically states effective, "filed Further, 4(a)(2) provides that, "[e]xcept (a)(4) 4, treated day thereof" (emphasis added). import language respect particular which applies, constitutes exception general will essentially reads first clause subdivision (a)(2) out holding does constitute exception. But taken seriously, untenable read except has case: is, establishing ineffective unless other applies. 8 therefore 9 Affirmed. Justice BRENNAN would certiorari set case oral argument. 11 MARSHALL dissents summary disposition, been ordered without affording prior opportunity briefs merits. See, e.g., Allen Hardy, 255, 2878, 199 (1986); City Los Angeles Heller, 475 796, 1571, 89 806 Maggio Fulford, 462 111, 120-121, 103 2261, 2265-2266, 76 794 (1983) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). * Accordingly, respondents' damages frivolous denied.

Category: 8