Slack v. St. Louis County Government, 90-1344
| Decision Date | 26 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1344,90-1344 |
| Citation | 919 F.2d 98 |
| Parties | 54 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 742, 18 Fed.R.Serv.3d 116 Joseph C. SLACK, Appellant, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY GOVERNMENT; St. Louis County Police Department; Gene McNary, County Executive; Col. Gilbert Klienknecht, Supt. of County Police; Robert Stoverink, Dir. of Personnel, St. Louis County Police; Earl R. Chambers, Former Dir. of Personnel, St. Louis County Police Department; Major Lawrence Wadsack, Exec. Dir. Special Operations; John W. Munyat, Dir. of Security Services; Edward E. Carpenter, Chairman Civil Service Commission; and, Captain Leo Frank Gomez, Security Supv., St. Louis County Police, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Nadine V. Nunn, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Dana K. Pulis, Clayton, Mo., for appellee.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAGG, Circuit Judge.
Joseph Slack appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaint brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e (Title VII) and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, and the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed Slack's complaint for, among other reasons, failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
St. Louis County argues that Slack's appeal should be dismissed and the district court's order dismissing his complaint should be affirmed because Slack's brief on appeal does not comply with Fed.R.App.P. 28. That provision states, in pertinent part:
The brief of appellant shall contain under appropriate headings ... [a] statement of the case. The statement shall first indicate briefly the nature of the case, the course of proceedings, and its disposition in the court below. There shall follow a statement of the facts relevant to the issues presented for review, with appropriate references to the record.
Fed.R.App.P. 28(a)(3) (West 1990).
Slack's appellant brief, as amended, 1 contains no recitation of the facts required by Rule 28. A few relevant facts are intermingled with the procedural history and in the two page argument section, but that is not enough. Cf. Hayes v. Invesco, 907 F.2d 853, 854 n. 3 (8th Cir.1990) (). The procedural history of a case is not the same as the facts underlying the substantive legal claims, facts which this court needs to decide the case properly. We agree with the Ninth Circuit that:
Appellate rules governing the form of briefs do not exist merely to serve the whimsy of appellate judges. Some of the requirements, such as what should be included in the statement of the case, are essential for the proper disposition of an appeal.
Hamblen v. County of Los Angeles, 803 F.2d 462, 464 (9th Cir.1986).
Slack's brief also fails to point out the basis of alleged error by the district court. It does not challenge the reasoning of the court, but appears to merely repeat several arguments already made to the district court concerning the timeliness of filing the initial action. "[P]oints which simply invite the court to search for error present no question for decision by this court." Kiilvent Metal Awning Corp. of America v. Bottom, 205 F.2d 209, 214 (8th Cir.1953).
Appeals that fail to comply with the applicable rules governing briefs are subject to dismissal. United States v. 339.77 Acres of Land, Arkansas, 420 F.2d 324, 325 (8th Cir.1970). 2
Accordingly, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Avery v. Steele
...in a brief may infect an otherwise meritorious appeal so pervasively as to make it frivolous, see, e.g., id; Slack v. St. Louis County Gov't, 919 F.2d 98, 99-100 (8th Cir.1990). See also Porco v. Porco, 752 P.2d 365, 369 (Utah Ct.App.1988). When "appellate tactics ... consist[ ] almost enti......
-
Schmidt v. Badger Mut. Ins. Co., Case No. 14-CV-1225-JPS
...ensures that appellate courts understand and are fully advised of the appellant's contentions on appeal); cf. Slack v. St. Louis Cty. Gov't, 919 F.2d 98, 99 (8th Cir. 1990) ("Appellate rules governing the form of briefs do not exist merely to serve the whimsy of appellate judges. Some of th......
-
Town of Hingham v. Sirikanjanachai (In re Sirikanjanachai), BAP NO. MB 18-059
...judges. Some of the requirements . . . are essential for the proper disposition of an appeal." Id. (quoting Slack v. St. Louis Cnty. Gov't, 919 F.2d 98, 99 (8th Cir. 1990)). A court is not required to overlook the procedural and substantive omissions in a party's briefing and to stitch toge......
-
Carter v. Lutheran Medical Center, 95-2262EM
...appeal must be dismissed because her brief presents no question for us to decide. See Fed. R.App. P. 28; Slack v. St. Louis County Gov't, 919 F.2d 98, 99-100 (8th Cir.1990) (per curiam). Among other shortfalls, Carter's brief neither provides a statement of the issues presented for our revi......