The failure to name the parties appealing a lower court’s ruling held a fatal jurisdictional defect
Gusler v. City of Long Beach, USCA, Docket #11-4493-cv
Jay Gusler, acting pro se, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging that the defendants* unlawfully retaliated against him.
The district court dismissed claims against some of the defendants but then dismissed a motion by the remaining individual defendants' raising a defense of qualified immunity. The remaining defendants then appealed the district court's dismissal of their motion.
The Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the appeal filed by the remaining individual defendants, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the appeal as they had not filed a timely notice of appeal.
Although the notice of appeal contained the full caption of the action, the body of the appeal stated: “Notice is hereby given that the defendant Nassau County hereby appeals.” However, said the court, while The City of Long Beach is in Nassau County, Nassau County itself is not a party in the action.
The Circuit Court said that the appeal as initially filed did not “provide notice to the court [or] to the opposing parties of the identity of the appellant or appellants” so that neither the Circuit Court, nor the district court, nor the plaintiff “know . . . which parties are bound by the district court’s [decision] [and] which parties may be held liable for costs or sanctions on the appeal.”
Further, noted the Circuit Court, the amended notice of appeal did not cure the problem as the amended notice was filed after the time to appeal had run.**
The Circuit Court dismissed the appeal, explaining that “Because the notice of appeal did not specify which defendants were taking an appeal of the district court’s decision, we lack jurisdiction to consider their appeal.”
* Gusler had named as the defendants in his action The City Of Long Beach, The Long Beach Volunteer Fire Department, The Long Beach Police Department, and twelve individuals.
** The Circuit Court also pointed out that the defendants “did not seek an extension of time to amend and correct the notice of appeal … and the time to do so has long since passed….”
The Circuit Court's decision is posted on the Internet at: