Becker v. Montgomery
2001 U.S. LEXIS 4114, 532 U.S. 757, 149 L. Ed. 2d 983 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The failure to sign a timely filed notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect; rather, it is a curable omission under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a) that can be corrected after the appeal period has expired once the party is notified of the defect.
Facts:
- Dale G. Becker, an Ohio prisoner representing himself (pro se), filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court challenging his exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke.
- After the district court dismissed his complaint, Becker decided to appeal the decision.
- Within the 30-day appeal period, Becker filed a notice of appeal using a standard, government-printed form.
- Becker filled out all necessary information on the form, correctly identifying himself as the appellant, the judgment being appealed, and the court to which he was appealing.
- On the line designated for "(Counsel for Appellant)," Becker typed his name but did not provide a handwritten signature.
- The form itself contained no statement or indication that a handwritten signature was required.
Procedural Posture:
- Dale G. Becker filed a pro se civil rights complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
- The District Court dismissed Becker's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Becker filed a timely, but unsigned, notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
- Six months later, the Sixth Circuit, acting on its own motion, dismissed the appeal, ruling that the lack of a signature was a jurisdictional defect.
- The Sixth Circuit denied Becker's motion for reconsideration, to which he had attached a signed notice of appeal.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted Becker's petition for a writ of certiorari.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the failure to sign a timely filed notice of appeal constitute a jurisdictional defect that requires a court of appeals to dismiss the appeal?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ginsburg
No. The failure to sign a timely filed notice of appeal is not a jurisdictional defect requiring dismissal. The signature requirement for a notice of appeal, which is filed in the district court, is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(a). While that rule requires a signature, its final sentence explicitly provides that an "omission of the signature" may be "corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party." The court reasoned that the signature requirement and its accompanying cure provision are a cohesive whole and cannot be applied separately. The truly jurisdictional requirements for a notice of appeal are enumerated in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c)(1)—specifying the parties, the judgment, and the appellate court—and a signature is not among them. Therefore, as long as a notice of appeal is timely filed and meets the substantive requirements of Rule 3, jurisdiction vests in the court of appeals, and the signature defect is a curable, non-fatal error.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the critical distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional procedural rules in federal appellate practice. By locating the signature requirement within FRCP 11(a) and its built-in cure provision, the Court prevents a minor, correctable error from causing the forfeiture of a party's substantive right to appeal. The ruling reinforces a judicial preference for deciding cases on their merits over dismissing them on procedural technicalities, a principle particularly significant for protecting pro se litigants who may be less familiar with court rules. This precedent establishes that procedural defects not explicitly listed as jurisdictional in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should generally be treated as curable.
Unlock the full brief for Becker v. Montgomery