Legal Document

502 U.S. 244 112 S.Ct. 678 116 L.Ed.2d William Lewis SMITH, Petitionerv.Wayne S. BARRY et al. No. 90-7477. Argued Dec. 2, 1991. Decided Jan. 14, 1992. Syllabus Rule 3 of the Federal Rules Appellate Procedure conditions federal appellate jurisdiction on filing a timely notice appeal. In response to petitioner Smith's premature, and therefore invalid, appeal in his action for damages against state officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Fourth Circuit's Clerk sent parties copies "informal brief" that court uses pro se appeals an explanatory order. Smith returned informal brief within deadline appeal, but Court Appeals dismissed want jurisdiction, concluding, inter alia, can never be considered Held: A document intended serve as may qualify required by 3. So long such is filed time allowed 4 satisfies 3(c)'s requirements content notice, it treated "functional equivalent" formal demanded Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 312, 317, 108 2405, 2409, 101 285. The fact briefing order irrelevant, since afforded document, not litigant's motivation it, determines document's sufficiency Moreover, envision appellant's will two separate filings does preclude from treating appropriate circumstances. 3(c) requires informality form or title proper jurisdictional requirement Rules. with Appeals, rather than District 3(a), also 4(a)(1) sets out procedures followed when mistakenly court. On remand, should determine whether contains information 3(c). Pp. 247-250. 919 F.2d 893 (CA4 1990), reversed remanded. O'CONNOR, J., delivered opinion Court, which REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, concurring judgment. Steven H. Goldblatt, petitioner. David Bamberger, respondents. Justice O'CONNOR Court. 1 this case, we hold 2 * While inmate at Maryland State Penitentiary, prison administrators, seven corrections officers, psychologists, named respondent Dr. Wayne Barry, private physician. Suing alleged he suffered psychogenic pain disorder defendants' refusal provide him wheelchair constituted cruel unusual punishment violation Eighth Amendment. further officers used excessive force him, Barry defendant ground did act color law was subject suit 1983. App. 5-6. case proceeded trial 1988, following appointment counsel. After presented chief, directed verdict administrators claim, three claim. jury ultimately rejected claim four remaining officers. However, found staff psychologists were deliberately indifferent medical needs awarded $15,000 damages. motion judgment notwithstanding (J.N.O.V.). Without consulting attorney, while J.N.O.V. pending, counsel learned after denied psychologists' motion. letter dated April 21, wrote Smith: 5 "I am certain circumstances [the appeal] premature thus void. 6 ". . Order denying Motion entered 13, 1988. This would give you up until May 1988 before must file I urge take (sic) advice least seek second legal matter." 17. 7 invalid 4(a)(4), provides disposition without effect. Although had been properly invoked, its responded sending all explaining court's procedures. forms asked answer six questions about their positions. Under rules, Circuit reviews these responses record and/or oral argument are warranted. See Fed.Proc. Service, Circuit, 34(b). 4, 8 counsel, jurisdiction. It held untimely "the 'functional equivalent' " requires. Galley, 893, 895 (1990) (quoting 285 (1988)). reasoned documents. F.2d, 895-896. footnote, listed specific omissions might render inadequate Id., 896, n. 7. Given conclusion however, expressed no significance omissions. Ibid. 9 We granted certiorari, 501 ----, 111 2886, 115 1051 (1991), decide question has divided Courts Appeals. Compare supra; United States Cooper, 876 1192, 1196 (CA5 1989) (appellate cannot substitute appeal); Jurgens McKasy, 905 382, 385, (CA Fed.1990) (same), Frace Russell, 341 901, 903 (CA3) (treating appeal), cert. denied, 382 863, 86 127, 15 (1965); Allah Superior California, 871 887, 889-890 (CA9 (same); Finch Vernon, 845 256, 259-260 (CA11 1988) (same). II 10 3(a) provides, pertinent part, "[a]n permitted right district shall taken clerk 4." governs notices appeal: "shall specify party taking appeal; designate judgment, part thereof appealed from; name taken." 11 liberally construe Torres, supra, U.S., 316, S.Ct., 2408; Foman Davis, 371 178, 181-182, 83 227, 229-230, 222 (1962). Thus, papers "technically variance [Rule 3], nonetheless find litigant complied rule if functional equivalent what requires." 316-317, 2408-2409. principle liberal construction not, excuse compliance rule. 3's dictates nature, satisfaction prerequisite review. supra. courts determining with, noncompliance fatal 12 recognized 3, 895, erred applying standard. because order, result intent initiate appeal." logic dubious, received albeit one. 13 More importantly, have relied reasons brief. specifically indicate review, see Foman, 181, 229; 317-318, 2409-2410, purpose ensure sufficient other courts. id., 318, 2409. If specified gives effective 14 dismissing insufficient. do filings. Fed.Rule App.Proc. (content appeal) 28(a) brief). They styled conveys Such treatment provision Having accepted paper require meeting standards or, meets those standards, deems sequence contemplated disturbed. See, e.g., 10(b) (time ordering transcripts inclusion 31(a) (briefing schedule). Proper Procedure. ("Failure appellant any step affect validity ."). 16 Respondents make point whereas directs litigants themselves argument. transmittal procedure court, misfiled deemed court" day appeals. 17 Finally, respondents argue adequate lacks declined reach question. undertake analysis. 18 reversed, remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 19 so ordered. 20 21 agree rely theory petitioner's "liberal construction" Ante, 248. "[W]e interpret rules neither nor stingily, only, best can, according apparent intent." 319, 2410, (1988) (SCALIA, judgment).

Classification Label: 8