Bolden v. Odum, 81-7760
| Citation | 695 F.2d 549 |
| Decision Date | 14 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-7760,81-7760 |
| Parties | Charles Leon BOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Junior ODUM, Sheriff, Buddy Allen, Investigator, Otis Thomas Lott, Deputy, Newton County Sheriff's Department, Defendants-Appellees. Non-Argument Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
Charles Leon Bolden, pro se.
John P. Howell, Covington, Ga., for Lotts.
William Thomas Craig, Covington, Ga., for Lotts and Allen.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, FAY and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
After a jury trial, judgment in this case was entered on August 12, 1981, in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiff, who now brings this appeal. Plaintiff's complaint in the district court was based upon charges that defendants had violated his constitutional rights under color of state law while he was an inmate in the Newton County, Georgia jail. Jurisdiction was asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Plaintiff proceeded at trial and in this court pro se. On August 17, 1981, plaintiff filed his motion for new trial; on September 9, 1981, he filed his notice of appeal; and on September 22, 1981, the district court denied plaintiff's motion for new trial.
We dismiss this appeal because we lack jurisdiction. We stated in Martin v. Campbell, 692 F.2d 112 (11th Cir., 1982):
FRAP 4(a)(4) renders ineffective a notice of appeal filed during the pendency of specified posttrial motions, including a motion for a new trial, and requires that a new notice of appeal be filed after the posttrial motion is disposed of.
Rule 4(a)(4) was amended in 1979 to include the following language:
A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of any of the above motions [FRCP 59, et al] shall have no effect. A new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion as provided above.
Since the opinion in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972), courts have shown leniency in construing pleadings filed by pro se litigants. There the Supreme Court reversed a dismissal of an inartfully drawn complaint filed by a prisoner pro se. See also Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). Our dismissing this appeal is not contrary to the view expressed by Haines. If a pro se complainant meets jurisdictional requirements, we can extend such leniency as justice requires in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kilgo v. Bowman Transp., Inc.
...time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion as provided above. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4); see also Bolden v. Odum, 695 F.2d 549, 550 (11th Cir.1983); Martin v. Campbell, 692 F.2d 112, 114 (11th Cir.1982). Bowman contends that its motion for a new trial did not nullify its f......
-
Bamberg v. Regions Bank
...the merits that plaintiffs must meet to obtain the extraordinary and drastic remedy of a temporary restraining order. Bolden v. Odum, 695 F.2d 549, 550 (11th Cir. 1983)(discussing pro se pleadings); United States v. Jefferson Cnty., 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (11th Cir. 1983) (discussing prelimina......
-
SNF Prop., LLC v. Seoane
...U.S. 132, 141 (2005). While removal was inappropriate here, leniency must be given to parties proceeding pro se. See Bolden v. Odum, 695 F.2d 549, 550 (11th Cir. 1983). Furthermore, nothing suggests that Donald Seoane removed this case for improper purposes, such as to delay litigation. The......
-
Douse v. United States
... ... leniency" if the pro se "complainant meets ... jurisdictional requirements." Bolden v. Odum, ... 695 F.2d 549, 550 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam). And we are ... mindful ... ...