Acosta v. Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources
| Citation | 478 U.S. 251,92 L.Ed.2d 192,106 S.Ct. 2876 |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-1500,85-1500 |
| Parties | Roland V. ACOSTA v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES et al |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
See 478 U.S. 1036, 107 S.Ct. 23.
In 1981, petitioner filed a civil rights action against respondents. Respondents moved to dismiss, and the District Court dismissed the action in its entirety. Petitioner filed, and then abandoned, an appeal. Respondents then moved in the District Court for an award of attorney's fees on the ground that petitioner had filed his action in bad faith. The court granted the motion and awarded respondents fees amounting to some $19,000. Petitioner filed a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment, as authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The District Court held a hearing on the motion and denied it from the bench. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal that same afternoon. Not until two days later, however, was the order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment entered on the docket. Petitioner did not file a new notice of appeal following the docket entry.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed petitioner's appeal, ruling that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed. 776 F.2d 1046 (1985). The Court of Appeals relied on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), which, in pertinent part, provides:
The court concluded that because petitioner filed his notice of appeal before the order disposing of the Rule 59 motion, Rule 4(a)(4) required it to treat the notice as a "nullity" and thus deprived the court of jurisdiction over the appeal.
The Fifth Circuit's interpretation of Rule 4(a)(4) is directly contrary to that adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Calhoun v. United States, 647 F.2d 6 (1981). There, the court held that the Rule's command that "[a] notice of appeal filed before the disposition of [a Rule 59 motion] shall have no effect," did not render a notice of appeal filed after the announcement of the decision on the motion but before the entry of the order a nullity. Rather, the court concluded that the term "disposition" as used in the rule was synonymous with "announcement"; accordingly, a notice of appeal could be given effect as long as it was filed after the trial court's announcement of its ruling. The Ninth Circuit concluded that this interpretation of the Rule was justified by "the policy of 'exercising all proper means to prevent the loss of valuable rights when the validity of an appeal is challenged not because something was done too late, but rather because it was done too soon.' " Id., at 10 (quoting Williams v. Town of Okoboji, 599 F.2d 238, 239-240 (CA8 1979)). The court reasoned that if a notice filed before entry of the order were deemed defective, "valuable rights [might] be lost because an important, but ministerial, act was not performed when expected." 647 F.2d, at 11.
Because such a direct conflict over the interpretation of the Rules of Appellate Procedure calls for resolution in this Court, we grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.* Finding that the issue is not one that requires plenary consideration, we now affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
Unlike the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Calhoun, the decision below comports with the plain wording of the Rules. Rule 4(a)(4) specifically states that a notice of appeal, to be effective, must be "filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion as pro- vided above." Further, Rule 4(a)(2) provides that, "[e]xcept as provided in (a)(4) of this Rule 4, a notice of appeal filed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dept.
...See Calhoun v. United States, 647 F.2d 6, 10-11 (9th Cir.1981), overruled on other grounds, Acosta v. Louisiana Dep't of Health & Human Res., 478 U.S. 251, 106 S.Ct. 2876, 92 L.Ed.2d 192 (1986); see also Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 382, 387-88, 98 S.Ct. 1117, 55 L.Ed.2d 357 B......
-
McCarthy v. Mayo
...Calhoun v. United States, 647 F.2d 6, 8 (9th Cir.1981), disapproved on other grounds, Acosta v. Louisiana Dept. of Health and Human Resources, --- U.S. ----, 106 S.Ct. 2876, 92 L.Ed.2d 192 (1986); C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 3950 at 364 (1977). The ......
-
City of Newport, Kentucky v. Iacobucci
...prior notice or an opportunity to file briefs on the merits. See, e.g., Acosta v. Louisiana Dept. of Health and Human Resources, 478 U.S. 251, 106 S.Ct. 2876, 92 L.Ed.2d 192 (1986) (MARSHALL, J., dissenting). Justice STEVENS, with whom Justice BRENNAN joins, As I have previously written, th......
-
McCowan v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
...of an order but before its entry in the docket will be deemed timely filed. Acosta v. Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources, 478 U.S. 251, 253-54, 106 S.Ct. 2876, 2877, 92 L.Ed.2d 192 (1986). "Any other interpretation," the Court explained, "would read the first clause of subdi......