U.S. Supreme Court nixes unique circumstances.

• Date: 25 June 2007
• Author: Ziemer, David

Byline: David Ziemer

The "unique circumstances" doctrine, long subject to criticism in the Seventh Circuit, has been overruled by a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued June 14. Under the doctrine, a party's failure to make a jurisdictional deadline was not fatal, if the failure was made in reliance on a district court's order. But where the deadline is "jurisdictional," such as that for filing a timely notice of appeal, not even reliance on a court order can excuse the late filing. In 1999, a state court jury in Ohio convicted Keith Bowles of murder. After unsuccessfully challenging his conviction and sentence on direct appeal in state court, he filed a federal habeas corpus petition. On Sept. 9, 2003, the district court denied Bowles habeas relief, giving Bowles 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Bowles failed to do so, but on Dec. 12, he moved to reopen the period during which he could file his notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which allows district courts to extend the filing period for 14 days from the day the district court grants the order to reopen, provided certain conditions are met. On Feb. 10, 2004, the District Court granted Bowles' motion. But rather than extending the time period by 14 days, the court gave Bowles 17 days to file his notice of appeal. Bowles filed his notice on Feb. 26 -- within the 17 days allowed by the court, but after the 14-day period allowed by Rule 4(a)(6) and 28 U.S.C. 2107(c). The Sixth Circuit held...