CHARLES LEON BOLDEN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
JUNIOR ODUM, SHERIFF, BUDDY ALLEN, INVESTIGATOR, OTIS THOMAS LOTT, DEPUTY, NEWTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a motion for a new trial is ineffective and requires a new notice of appeal to be filed after the motion is disposed of.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, appealed a jury verdict and judgment entered against him. He filed a motion for a new trial and subsequently filed a not…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Se Litigant Leniency cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
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 appeai. Plaintiffs 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. § 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 plaintiffs 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 construing the pleadings filed by such a litigant. In Yates v. Mobile Cty. Personnel Board, 658 F. 2d 298 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), the pro se complainant filed a “Petition for Supervisory Writ of Mandamus and Certiorari” within 30 days after the district court entered final judgment. The petition clearly indicated an intent to appeal from the final judgment. The court accepted jurisdiction because the requirements for a timely notice of appeal had been met and the irregularity related to a matter of an inartful choice of words.
In the present case, we are not permitted to excuse Bolden’s failure to comply with Rule 4(a)(4) which clearly requires a timely notice of appeal to be filed after the district court enters its order on a motion for new trial. Lacking jurisdiction, this appeal is DISMISSED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kilgo v. Bowman Transp., Inc., 789 F.2d 859 (11th Cir. 1986)…osition of any of the above motions 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. 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 first notice of appeal because Rule 4(a)(4) applies only to appeals from final orders, not to appeals…
-
Stallworth v. Laquita Shuler, 758 F.2d 1409 (11th Cir. 1985)…nd tolls the time for taking appeal. Hammond v. Public Finance Corp., 568 F. 2d 1362, 1363 (5th Cir. 1978). The motion rendered defendants-appellants’ notice and amended notice of appeal filed on July 16 and 26, 1984 ineffective. See Bolden v. Odum, 695 F. 2d 549, 550 (11th Cir.1983). The district court.entered an order on this motion August 17, 1984. The notice of appeal would have to have been refiled after that date. No notjce of appeal was filed but the defendants-appellants filed a bond for stay pendi…
-
SNF Prop., LLC v. Seoane (M.D. Fla. 2020)…removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 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. Therefore, an award of attorney’s fees is not warranted under § 1447(c). Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJ…
Authorities Cited
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1957)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972)
- Shayne Degraw Martin v. R. E. Campbell, M.D., 692 F.2d 112 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Kitty Jones Yates v. Mobile Cnty. Pers. Bd., 658 F.2d 298 (5th Cir. 1981)