Baez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 16-3784
Decision Date | 10 July 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 17-1438,No. 16-3784,16-3784 |
Parties | Jorge BAEZ–SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent. David Bishop and Eric Lish, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, Defendant–Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Charles Roth, Attorney, National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago, IL, for Petitioner (Case No. 16–3784).
OIL, Attorney, Robert Dale Tennyson, Jr., Attorney, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent (Case No. 16–3784).
Daniel F. Kolb, Attorney, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, New York, NY, for Amicus Curiae Americans for Immigrant Justice (Case No. 16–3784).
Myron M. Cherry, Attorney, Jacie C. Zolna, Attorney, Myron M. Cherry & Associates, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs–Appellants (Case No. 17–1438).
Michael E. Abram, Attorney, Joshua J. Ellison, Attorney, Michael L. Winston, Attorney, Cohen, Weiss & Simon, New York, NY, Marcus Charles Migliore, Attorney, Airline Pilots Association, Washington, DC, Rami Naji Fakhouri, Attorney, Goldman Ismail Tomaselli Brennan & Baum LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant–Appellee (Case No. 17–1438).
Before Wood, Chief Judge, in chambers.
This court carefully screens all appeals and other matters filed with it to ensure that there are no jurisdictional problems, either at the district court or agency level or before us. In conducting this screening, we rely on the jurisdictional information furnished by the parties. Seventh Circuit Rule 3(c)(1) requires the docketing statement filed by the appellant (or petitioner, as the case may be) to "comply with the requirements of Circuit Rule 28(a)." Seventh Circuit Rule 28(a) addresses the later briefing stage, but the net effect of Circuit Rules 3(c)(1) and 28(a) is to require the same jurisdictional information for both docketing and briefing. With the important exception of pro se submissions, the court screens all briefs once they are filed to ensure that they include all the necessary information about the jurisdiction of both the district court (or agency) and the court of appeals. FRAP 28(b) addresses the appellee's brief; it allows the appellee to omit the jurisdictional statement "unless the appellee is dissatisfied with the appellant's statement."
These requirements may seem straightforward, but a distressing number of briefs filed in this court do not comply with the requirements of FRAP 28, as fleshed out in Circuit Rule 28. The two matters before me illustrate some common mistakes. I am issuing this opinion in the hope that attorneys practicing in the Seventh Circuit, as well as our pro se litigants, will take heed and avoid these errors in the future.
I begin with a review of the rules governing jurisdictional statements in briefs. FRAP 28(a)(4) describes the jurisdictional statement required for an appellant or someone petitioning from an agency order; as FRAP 20 provides, all references in this opinion to appellants or appellees apply equally to petitioners and respondents. FRAP 28(a)(4) sets out the four critical points that must be included in all jurisdictional statements: (1) the basis for the district court or agency's jurisdiction; (2) the basis of the appellate court's jurisdiction; (3) the relevant dates demonstrating that the appeal or petition is timely; and (4) information establishing either finality or the existence of a relevant exception to the final-judgment rule. Circuit Rule 28(a) explains what information is needed to satisfy these requirements. Although this part of the rule is rather long, it is worth reproducing in full here:
The rules for an appellee's jurisdictional statement do not consume as much space, but they are equally important. As noted above, FRAP 28(b) exempts the appellee from filing a jurisdictional statement unless it is "dissatisfied" with the appellant's statement. Circuit Rule 28(b) directs that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi.
...importance of docketing statements. United States v. Lloyd , 398 F.3d 978, 980–81 (7th Cir. 2005) ; Baez-Sanchez v. Sessions , 862 F.3d 638, 639 (7th Cir. 2017) (Wood, C.J., in chambers). And we enforce our requirements in a manner calculated to induce compliance. See, e.g., BondPro Corp. v......
-
Monroy v. Shutterfly, Inc.
...standing in this case, the court has an independent obligation to assure itself of its jurisdiction. See, e.g., Baez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 2017). The court has considered the issue and has concluded that Monroy has alleged a sufficient injury-in-fact for Article I......
-
Denwiddie v. Mueller
...simply to correct the misstatement or omission and "accept" the balance of the appellant's statement.Baez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 2017) (Wood, C.J., in chambers). Given that we identified the defect in the appellees' jurisdictional statement, their failure to correc......
-
Grandberry v. SL Harbour Vill., LLC
...not disagreed with his assertion. However, because I have an independent obligation to police my own jurisdiction, see Baez-Sanchez v. Sessions, 862 F.3d 638, 641 (2017), I must first consider whether Grandberry's wage-collection claim falls within the court's supplemental jurisdiction. Sup......