Evangelistic Godson v. Johns Hopkins Medicine

Summary

The D.C. Circuit held that a pro se notice of appeal should be construed to include a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) or (6) when it can reasonably be read as recognizing that the appeal is late, providing reasons for the lateness, and requesting extra time to appeal, and that de novo review governs a district court's failure to make that construction. Applying that standard, the court concluded that Rudometkin's notice — which alleged he never received notice of the order and expressly invoked Rules 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6)(A) — qualified, making the district court's failure non-harmful error and warranting a limited remand for the district court to rule on the motions. Godson's grievance-filled notice, by contrast, could not reasonably be read as acknowledging untimeliness and seeking relief, so his appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Circuit Judge Katsas concurred in the judgments, agreeing with the governing standard but doubting that a notice qualifies merely by stating the date the appellant received the order.