Bowles v. Russell
| Bowles v. Russell | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||||
| Argued March 26, 2007 Decided June 14, 2007 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||||
| Majority by: Thomas, J. Joined by: Roberts, C.J.; Scalia; Kennedy; Alito, J.J. Dissent by: Souter Joined by: Stevens; Ginsburg; Breyer, J.J. |
Bowles v. Russell, 551 U. S. ____ (2007), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court determined that the federal courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to hear habeas appeals that are filed late, even if the district court said the petitioner had additional time to file.
Early history of the parties
In 1999, Keith Bowles was convicted in the murder of Ollie Gipson. Bowles request to file an appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), which allows a district court to grant a 14-day extension under certain conditions. The District Court granted Bowles’ motion but inexplicably gave him 17 days to file his notice of appeal. He filed within the 17 days allowed by the District Court, but after the 14-day period allowed by Rule 4(a)(6) and §2107(c). The Sixth Circuit held that the notice was untimely and that it therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the case under this Court’s precedent.
The Sixth Circuit decision is published at 432 F. 3d 668.
Supreme Court decision
In this case, a District Court purported to extend a party's time for filing an appeal beyond the period allowed by statute. We must decide whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed after the statutory period but within the period allowed by the District Court’s order. We have long and repeatedly held that the time limits for filing a notice of appeal are jurisdictional in nature. Accordingly, we hold that petitioner’s untimely notice—even though filed in reliance upon a District Court’s order-deprived the Court of Appeals jurisdiction. [1]
The dissenting opinion stated "It is intolerable for the judicial system to treat people this way, and there is not even a technical justification for condoning this bait and switch."
Impact of the case
The Court ruled that an appellate court may sua sponte dismiss an appeal which has not been filed within the time limitations authorized by a district court after granting a motion to reopen the appeal time under Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The rule was interpreted that time is of the essence. Additional time granted by the district court judge, even if granted in error, is not permitted in beyond the stated rules. The ruling may be seen as the Courts attempt to limit the powers of the judicial branch.
Disclaimer
This article should not be considered legal advice. Subsequent cases and law may affect current legal claims.
External links
References
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
