Acosta v. Louisiana Department of Health and Human Resources et al. (478 U.S. 251)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 30, 1986 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 478 U.S. 251 · 106 S. Ct. 2876
- Decided
- June 30, 1986
- Term
- October Term 1985
- Vote
- 7–2
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Per Curiam. In 1981, petitioner filed a civil rights action against respondents. Respondents moved to dismiss, and the District Court dismissed the action in its entirety. Petitioner filed, and then abandoned, an appeal. Respondents then moved in the District Court for an award of attorney’s fees on the ground that petitioner had filed his action in bad faith. The court granted the motion and awarded respondents fees amounting to some $19,000. Petitioner filed a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment, as authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). The District Court held a hearing on the motion and denied it from the bench. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal that same afternoon. Not until two days later, however, was the order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment entered on the docket. Petitioner did not file a new notice of appeal following the docket entry. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed petitioner’s appeal, ruling that the notice of appeal was prematurely filed. 776 F. 2d 1046 (1985). The Court of Appeals relied on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), which, in pertinent part, provides: “If a timely motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is filed in the district court by any party . . . under Rule 59 to alter or amend the judgment . . . the time for appeal for all parties shall run from the…
Excerpt of a 5,561-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.