Appellate Law

CA1: The District Court acted just too jerky in dismissing the complaint

By S. COTUS

Linares v. U.S., No. 08-1548.  This is an FTCA case.  However, it degenerated into a fight over ECF.  For some reason some (perhaps most) courts require that the parties provide the court with paper copies of electronic filings.  I never understood this.  ECF was supposed to reduce paper.  Anyway, the plaintiff filed a paper complaint.  There was a standing order in place that says that all documents filed in paper form should be filed electronically. 

The District Court, on its own motion dismissed the complaint and sanctioned the plaintiff $150.  Counsel filed a motion for reconsideration, and included an electronic copy, coming up with a good excuse (that his computer was broken).  Not good enough for the District Court.  The Plaintiff docketed a notice of appeal, the District Court started to realize that it was looking bad and issued an order saying that now the reason that the complaint was booted was because he waited too long to cure it.  

The First points to the "standing order" which does not even specify a timeframe for filing electronic copies.  It also points out that dismissal is the harshest of sanctions, there were no aggravating circumstances, and the defendant wasn't prejudiced.

The District Court is looking pretty jerky.  The First says so as well.  

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on November 10, 2008 (boomark / email).