The failure to name the parties appealing a lower court’s ruling held a fatal jurisdictional defect

To contact us Click HERE

The failure to name the parties appealing a lower court’sruling held a fatal jurisdictional defectGusler v. City of Long Beach, USCA, Docket #11-4493-cv
Jay Gusler, acting pro se, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. §1983alleging that the defendants* unlawfullyretaliated against him.
The district court dismissed claims against someof 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 bythe 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 herebygiven that the defendant Nassau County hereby appeals.” However, said thecourt, while The City of Long Beach is in Nassau County, Nassau County itself isnot a party in the action.
The CircuitCourt said that the appeal as initially filed did not “provide notice to the court [or] to the opposingparties of the identity of the appellant or appellants” so that neither theCircuit Court, nor the district court, nor the plaintiff  “know . . . whichparties are bound by the district court’s [decision] [and] which parties may beheld liable for costs or sanctions on the appeal.”
Further, noted the Circuit Court, the amended notice ofappeal did not cure the problem as the amended notice was filed after the timeto appeal had run.**
The Circuit Court dismissed the appeal, explaining that “Becausethe notice of appeal did not specify which defendants were taking an appeal ofthe district court’s decision, we lack jurisdiction to consider their appeal.”
* Gusler had named as thedefendants in his action The City Of Long Beach, The Long Beach Volunteer FireDepartment, The Long Beach Police Department, and twelve individuals.
** The Circuit Court alsopointed out that the defendants “did not seek an extension of time to amend andcorrect 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:http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/67fcaa5c-1014-4d83-957a-173edf363d85/1/doc/11-4493_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/67fcaa5c-1014-4d83-957a-173edf363d85/1/hilite/