This page looks plain and unstyled because you're using a non-standard compliant browser. To see it in its best form, please upgrade to a browser that supports web standards. It's free and painless.

CMLawLibraryBlog

The CM Law Library Blog seeks to inform the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law community about key legal education, research, practice, and law library news, with a particular focus on Cuyahoga County and Ohio as well as faculty research interests.

Rely on Statutes and Rules, Not Court Personnel, When Determining Deadlines

Sue Altmeyer, Electronic Services Librarian, sue.altmeyer@law.csuohio.edu | June 22, 2007 - 07:41

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision reminds us that attorneys must look to statutes and court rules for jurisdictional deadlines, not court personnel - not even a judge. While sometimes statutes and court rules provide judges with discretion to extend a deadline, other times they do not. A firm deadline with no discretion was the case in Bowles v. Russell No. 06-5306, Slip Op. (U.S.S.C. June 14, 2007). The Supreme Court held that a deadline for an appeal firmly established by a statute could not be extended, even though the attorney relied upon the trial court's order. The trial court's order erroneously indicated the defendant had more time to appeal than the statute allowed.

The case involved an appeal of the federal Northern District of Ohio's decision denying habeas corpus relief to a defendant convicted of murder. The defendant missed the initial deadline for an appeal, but a federal statute, 28 U.S.C. 2107(c), allowed the district court judge to grant a 14 day extension. The district judge's order granting the extension erroneously indicated that defendant had until February 26 to appeal, which was a 17 day extension. The Sixth Circuit held the appeal was untimely, because it was not within the 14 days allowed by 28 U.S.C. 2107(c).

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the appellate court's decision. The Supreme Court stated that the appeal deadline was firmly set by Congress and Congress provided no exceptions in the statute. The appeals court had no ability or discretion to waive the untimely appeal. Congress may establish exceptions for unique circumstances or excusable neglect, but the court can not create such exceptions. Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc. (1962), 371 U.S. 215 and Thompson v. INS (1964), 375 U.S. 384 were overruled, "...to the extent they purport to authorize an exception to a jurisdictional rule."

Also See Elizabeth Auster, Justices Say "No" in Painesville Murder, The Plain Dealer, June 15, 2007.


National:: Comment (0) :: Permalink :: Trackbacks (0) AddThis Social Bookmark Button

 
Accessible and Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS
Powered by pLog - Design by BalearWeb