West v. United States, No. 13-16909 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against the United States and former FBI agent Joe Gordwin after plaintiff was convicted of robbery and sentenced to twenty years in prison based on manufactured and coerced witness testimony. Plaintiff alleged thirteen causes of action and sought punitive damages. The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss, but dismissed all of plaintiff's claims, including those against Gordwin. Plaintiff then filed this notice of appeal (NOA), which included Gordwin and the United States in the caption, but did not otherwise identify Gordwin or the claims against him in the NOA. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3 lists the requirements for taking an appeal as of right in federal court. While no party raised an issue with plaintiff's NOA, the court sua sponte addressed the issue. Consistent with other circuits and the plain language of Rule 3(c)(1)(A), the court held that failing to name an appellee in an NOA is not a bar to an appeal. Therefore, any ambiguity about the identity of the appellees in plaintiff's NOA does not preclude the court's review of plaintiff's claims against Gordwin. The court rejected the literal interpretation of Rule 3(c)(1)(B), which stands in contrast to section 3(c)(1)(A), and applied a functional approach to plaintiff's case, concluding that his argument was more than sufficient to present the issue on appeal. Finally, the court concluded that the district court failed to distinguish between claims against the United States and claims against Gordwin when dismissing the case with prejudice. The court addressed the merits of plaintiff's other claims in a memorandum disposition filed concurrently with this opinion. The court reversed the judgment.
Court Description: Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3. The panel reversed the district court’s judgment in a civil action, which dismissed claims brought by Carl West against the United States and FBI agent Joe Gordwin based on misconduct in West’s criminal case. The panel sua sponte considered whether West’s notice of appeal (“NOA”) complied with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3, which lists the requirements for taking an appeal as of right in federal court. Under Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(A), the NOA must identify each appellant, but does not mention appellees. The panel held that failing to name an appellee in an NOA is not a jurisdictional bar to considering an appeal against that appellee. The panel concluded that any ambiguity about the identity of the appellees in West’s NOA did not preclude the court’s review of West’s claims against FBI Agent Gordwin. Under Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B) the NOA must “designate the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed.” The panel construed the NOA functionally, and concluded that it sufficiently indicated West’s intent to appeal the entire district court order and the judgment dismissing the whole suit. WEST V. UNITED STATES 3 The panel noted that the district court failed to distinguish between claims against the United States and claims against Gordwin when dismissing the case with prejudice. The panel held that it was clear error for the district court to dismiss the claims against Gordwin, who was not a party to the case because he had not been served and the time for service had not expired. The panel addressed the merits of West’s other claims in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. Judge O’Scannlain concurred in part and dissented in part. He concurred in the court’s reversal of the final judgment in the concurrent memorandum disposition with regard to West’s claims against the United States, and dissented from the majority’s holdings with regard to West’s claims against FBI Agent Gordwin. Because of a serious jurisdictional defect, Judge O’Scannlain would dismiss the appeal as to Gordwin rather than reverse and remand and expose him to further proceedings. Judge O’Scannlain concludes that the majority erred when it held that West’s intent to appeal the judgment with respect to Agent Gordwin could be inferred and that he was not prejudiced.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.