Lawrence v. Intl Bro of Teamster

5(&200(1'(' )25 )8//7(;7 38%/,&$7,21
 /DZUHQFHY,QW¶O%KG 1R 3XUVXDQW WR 6L[WK &LUFXLW 5XOH 
RI7HDPVWHUVHWDO (/(&7521,& &,7$7,21  )(' $SS 3 WK &LU
)LOH 1DPH DS
CONCLUSION
81,7('67$7(6&28572)$33($/6
6LQFHWKH³XQLTXHFLUFXPVWDQFHV´UXOHGRHVQRWDSSO\ZH
GHFOLQH WR KHDU /DZUHQFH¶V DSSHDO LQDVPXFK DV /DZUHQFH )257+(6,;7+&,5&8,7
ILOHGKLVQRWLFHRIDSSHDOWZRGD\VODWH:H$)),50WKH BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
GLVWULFWFRXUW¶VGHQLDORI/DZUHQFH¶VUHTXHVWIRUUHOLHIIURP
MXGJPHQW &$5/ /$:5(1&( ;
3ODLQWLII$SSHOODQW 
Y 
 1R
,17(51$7,21$/ 
%527+(5+22' 2) !

7($067(56 &+$8))(856 
:$5(+286(0(1 $1' 
+(/3(56 2) $0(5,&$ 
:,//,$0 - 0&&$57< 
&KDLUPDQRI7HDPVWHUV 

1DWLRQDO)UHLJKW*HQHUDO 
3UHVLGHQW521 &$5(< 
6XFFHVVRU&KDLUPDQRI 
7HDPVWHUV1DWLRQDO)UHLJKW 
*HQHUDO3UHVLGHQW'(11,6 & 
6.(/7211DWLRQDO)UHLJKW 

'LUHFWRU&R&KDLUPDQ 
7HDPVWHUV1DWLRQDO)UHLJKW 
,QGXVWULDO1HJRWLDWLQJ 
&RPPLWWHH-$0(6 $ 
0&&$//$VVRFLDWH*HQHUDO 

&RXQVHO67(9(1 :$,70$1 
3UHVLGHQWRI/RFDO 
7($067(56 /2&$/ 81,21 
12 
'HIHQGDQWV$SSHOOHHV 
1

 /DZUHQFHY,QW¶O%KG 1R 1R /DZUHQFHY,QW¶O%KG 
RI7HDPVWHUVHWDO RI7HDPVWHUVHWDO
$SSHDOIURPWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV'LVWULFW&RXUW Hollins. See Frazier v. United States, No. 97-6338, 2000 WL
IRUWKH1RUWKHUQ'LVWULFWRI2KLRDW7ROHGR 658072 (6th Cir. May 9, 2000). In Frazier, we dismissed an
1R²-DPHV*&DUU'LVWULFW-XGJH attempt by counsel to blame the tardiness of his client’s
habeas petition on a clerk who allegedly provided the attorney
$UJXHG-DQXDU\ with improper filing information. Id. at *1. As we explained,
"this court has not subscribed to the Eleventh Circuit’s lenient
'HFLGHGDQG)LOHG)HEUXDU\ interpretation of the ‘unique circumstances’ exception." Id.
%HIRUH1(/621DQG&/$<&LUFXLW-XGJHV+$<1(6 Second, prior to Osternak, we interpreted Thomson’s
'LVWULFW-XGJH
holding this way: "[An] appeal would be considered timely
because the appellant had done something which would have
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB extended the time for appeal if properly done, and relied on
the district court's statement that it was done properly."
&2816(/ Denley v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 733 F.2d 39, 42 (6th
Cir. 1984) (emphasis added). Although one could attempt to
$5*8('  7HUU\ / +RUG $GD 2KLR IRU $SSHOODQW interpret "district court" very broadly, to do so would strain
)UHGHULFN * &ORSSHUW -U &/233(57 /$7$1,&. the meaning of "district court." Clerks and court personnel
6$87(5  :$6+%851 &ROXPEXV 2KLR 'LDQD 6 work for the district court, they are not the district court.
%URZQ/2*27+(7,63(1&( '2//'D\WRQ2KLRIRU
$SSHOOHHV  21 %5,()  7HUU\ / +RUG $GD 2KLR IRU Third, the Supreme Court has only applied the "unique
$SSHOODQW  )UHGHULFN * &ORSSHUW -U &/233(57 circumstances" doctrine in four cases. See Osternak, 489
/$7$1,&.6$87(5 :$6+%851&ROXPEXV2KLR U.S. 169, Wolfsohn v. Hankin, 376 U.S. 203 (1964);
'LDQD6%URZQ-RKQ5'ROO/2*27+(7,63(1&( Thompson, 375 U.S. 384; Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry
'2//'D\WRQ2KLRIRU$SSHOOHHV Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 (1962). Each of these cases
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB involved mistaken court rulings or orders rather than poor
advice from a court clerk. See Osternak, 489 U.S. at 178;
23,1,21 Wolfsohn, 376 U.S. at 203-04; Thompson, 375 U.S. at 385-87;
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB Harris Truck Lines, 371 U.S. at 216-17.
&/$<&LUFXLW-XGJH3ODLQWLII&DUO/DZUHQFHDSSHDOVWKH Fourth, limiting the phrase "judicial officer" to judges
GHQLDORIKLVUHTXHVWIRUUHOLHIIURPMXGJPHQWSXUVXDQWWR)HG makes sense because "a formal order or ruling (1) generates
5&LY3EIROORZLQJDQRUGHURIVXPPDU\MXGJPHQW the highest level of justifiable reliance, and (2) raises virtually
DJDLQVW/DZUHQFHLQKLVEUHDFKRIGXW\RIIDLUUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ no possibility of evidentiary problems for appellate courts
FODLPDULVLQJXQGHU86&†:H$)),50 faced with applying the exception." Moore, 100 F.3d at 164.
Thus, policy and precedent each point strongly against the
lenient "unique circumstances" rule that Lawrence would
have this Court adopt.
7KH +RQRUDEOH :LOOLDP - +D\QHV -U 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 'LVWULFW -XGJH
IRU WKH 0LGGOH 'LVWULFW RI 7HQQHVVHH VLWWLQJ E\ GHVLJQDWLRQ
 /DZUHQFHY,QW¶O%KG 1R 1R /DZUHQFHY,QW¶O%KG 
RI7HDPVWHUVHWDO RI7HDPVWHUVHWDO
only where a party has performed an act which, if properly  %$&.*5281'
done, would postpone the deadline for filing his appeal and
has received specific assurance by a judicial officer that this /DZUHQFHZRUNHGDVDWUXFNGULYHUIRU'XII7UXFN/LQH
act has been properly done." Osterneck v. Ernst & Whitney, ,QF DQG LWV VXFFHVVRU 2. 7UXFNLQJ &RPSDQ\ ³2.´
489 U.S. 169, 179 (1989). IURPWKURXJK,QHDUO\2.ZDVVROGWR
:LQW]3DUFHO'ULYHUV³:LQW]´/DZUHQFHY,QW¶O%KGRI
With one exception, every circuit to have considered the 7HDPVWHUV,1R86$SS/(;,6DW
issue has found that the phrase "judicial officer" in Osterneck
WK&LU-DQ7KH,QWHUQDWLRQDO%URWKHUKRRG
refers only to judges. See, e.g. Rezzonico v. H & R Block, RI 7HDPVWHUV &KDXIIHXUV :DUHKRXVHPHQ DQG +HOSHUV RI
Inc., 182 F.3d 144, 152 (2d Cir. 1999) ("[S]tatements by a $PHULFD ³,%7´ DQG LWV /RFDO  ZHUH WKH H[FOXVLYH
member of the clerk's office staff are not official judicial EDUJDLQLQJDJHQWVIRUHPSOR\HHVRI2.7UXFNLQJ,GDW

assurances that qualify as unique circumstances."); Moore v. ,Q -DQXDU\  /DZUHQFH EHJDQ ILOLQJ JULHYDQFHV ZLWK
South Carolina Labor Bd., 100 F.3d 162, 164 (D.C. Cir. /RFDODOOHJLQJWKDW2.IDLOHGWRIROORZWKHFROOHFWLYH
1996) ("This case does not qualify for application of the EDUJDLQLQJDJUHHPHQW³&%$´,G/DZUHQFHDOVRFODLPHG
unique circumstances doctrine because although the WKDW:LQW]GLVFKDUJHGKLPLQYLRODWLRQRIWKH&%$ZKLFK
statements made by the clerk's office staff may constitute UHPDLQHGLQIRUFHDIWHU:LQW]SXUFKDVHG2.,G/DZUHQFH
specific assurances, they cannot fairly be characterized as GHPDQGHG WKDW 'HIHQGDQWV SURFHVV WKH JULHYDQFHV RQ KLV
official judicial action."); United States v. Heller, 957 F.2d EHKDOIDQGVHFXUHKLVUHLQVWDWHPHQWDORQJZLWKEDFNSD\DQG
26, 29 (1st Cir. 1992) ("We understand the term ‘judicial EHQHILWV,G,QKLVFRPSODLQW/DZUHQFHFODLPHG'HIHQGDQWV
officer’ in this context to mean a judge, not an employee in OHGKLPWREHOLHYHWKH\ZHUHSURFHVVLQJKLVJULHYDQFHVZKHQ
the office of the clerk."); Sonicraft, Inc. v. NLRB, 814 F.2d LQUHDOLW\WKH\WRRNQRDFWLRQ,GDW

385, 387 (7th Cir. 1987) (reasoning that "judicial officers"
must mean judges because "subordinate employees of the 2Q'HFHPEHU/DZUHQFHILOHGDFRPSODLQWLQWKH
judiciary have no authority to waive congressional limitations &RXUWRI&RPPRQ3OHDVLQ$OOHQ&RXQW\2KLRDOOHJLQJWKDW
on judicial power"). WKH ,QWHUQDWLRQDO %URWKHUKRRG RI 7HDPVWHUV &KDXIIHXUV
:DUHKRXVHPHQDQG+HOSHUVRI$PHULFD,%7VRPHRILWV
In contrast to the weight of the authority, the Eleventh LQGLYLGXDO RIILFHUV DQG 6WHYHQ :DLWPDQ 3UHVLGHQW RI
Circuit has "decided that the unique circumstances doctrine 7HDPVWHUV /RFDO 8QLRQ 1R  PLVKDQGOHG HOHYHQ
may apply where the appellant is lulled by assurances from JULHYDQFHV/DZUHQFHILOHGDJDLQVWKLVHPSOR\HU'HIHQGDQWV
the clerk’s office instead of the district court itself." Hollins UHPRYHG WKH FDVH WR IHGHUDO FRXUW  2Q -XO\   WKH
v. Dep’t of Corr., 191 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 1999). In GLVWULFW FRXUW JUDQWHG 'HIHQGDQWV¶ PRWLRQV WR GLVPLVV
Hollins, counsel relied on a clerk’s office electronic docket /DZUHQFH ILOHG D WLPHO\ DSSHDO RQ $XJXVW    7KLV
&RXUW DIILUPHG WKH ORZHU FRXUW¶V UXOLQJ DV WR IRXU RI WKH
system to determine, incorrectly, that the court had not yet JULHYDQFHV EXW UHYHUVHG DV WR WKH UHPDLQLQJ VHYHQ 6HH
filed a final order. Id. /DZUHQFH,86/(;,6
Even assuming Hollins did not reflect an extreme minority 2Q-XO\WKHGLVWULFWFRXUWRUGHUHGWKDWLWZRXOG
position, there are four reasons to firmly conclude that the QRWDFFHSWKDUGFRSLHVRISOHDGLQJVXQOHVVSURYLGHGIRULQLWV
"unique circumstances" doctrine does not apply here. First, (OHFWURQLF3ROLFLHVDQG3URFHGXUHV0DQXDO7KHUHDIWHUWKH
albeit in an unpublished opinion, we have already rejected
 /DZUHQFHY,QW¶O%KG 1R 1R /DZUHQFHY,QW¶O%KG 
RI7HDPVWHUVHWDO RI7HDPVWHUVHWDO
SDUWLHV FRQGXFWHG GLVFRYHU\ DQG 'HIHQGDQWV PRYHG IRU ',6&866,21
VXPPDU\MXGJPHQW ZKLFKWKHFRXUWJUDQWHGRQ0DUFK
 7KLV &RXUW ZLOO QRW UHYHUVH D GLVWULFW FRXUW¶V GHQLDO RI D
PRWLRQIRUUHOLHIIURPMXGJPHQWSXUVXDQWWREXQOHVVLW
(YLGHQWO\ GHIHQVH FRXQVHO KDG QHYHU ILOHG SDSHUV ILQGVDQDEXVHRIGLVFUHWLRQ-LQNVY$OOLHG6LJQDO,QF
HOHFWURQLFDOO\SULRUWRWKLVOLWLJDWLRQ$IWHUWKHGLVWULFWFRXUW )G  WK &LU  FLWLQJ 7KRPVRQ Y $P +RPH
JUDQWHG'HIHQGDQWVVXPPDU\MXGJPHQWRQ0DUFK $VVXUDQFH&R)GWK&LU:H
GHIHQVH FRXQVHO FRQWDFWHG WKH FRXUW WR ILQG RXW ZKHQ KH ILQGQRDEXVHRIGLVFUHWLRQKHUH
QHHGHGWRHOHFWURQLFDOO\ILOHKLVQRWLFHRIDSSHDO &RXQVHO
FODLPVWKDWZKHQKHDVNHGZKHWKHU$SULOZDVWKH $ 7KH³8QLTXH&LUFXPVWDQFHV´'RFWULQH'HILQHG
ODVWGD\WRILOHDQDSSHDODFOHUNDJUHHG
,Q7KRPSVRQY,1686WKHSODLQWLIIILOHG
$SDUW\PXVWILOHDQRWLFHRIDSSHDOZLWKLQWKLUW\GD\VRI DQXQWLPHO\PRWLRQIRUDQHZWULDO,GDW7KHGHIHQGDQW
HQWU\ RI WKH MXGJPHQW EHLQJ DSSHDOHG  )HG 5 $SS 3 GLG QRW REMHFW WR WKH XQWLPHO\ PRWLRQ DQG WKH WULDO FRXUW
D,QFDOFXODWLQJWKHWKLUW\GD\VWKHGD\RQZKLFKWKH DVVHUWHG WKDW WKH SODLQWLII KDG PDGH WKH PRWLRQ ³LQ DPSOH
MXGJPHQWZDVHQWHUHGLVH[FOXGHGEXWWKHODVWGD\LVLQFOXGHG WLPH´  ,G  $IWHU WKH FRXUW XOWLPDWHO\ GHQLHG WKH SRVWWULDO
XQOHVVLWLVD6DWXUGD\6XQGD\RUOHJDOKROLGD\)HG5$SS PRWLRQWKHSODLQWLIIDSSHDOHG,G
3D/DZUHQFHKDGWKLUW\GD\VDIWHU0DUFKRUXQWLO
$SULO$SULOZDVD:HGQHVGD\/DZUHQFH $WWKHDSSHOODWHOHYHOWKHGHIHQGDQWDUJXHGWKDWWKHPRWLRQ
ILOHGKLVDSSHDORQ$SULO IRUDQHZWULDOZDVXQWLPHO\DQGWKXVGLGQRWWROOWKHWLPHIRU
ILOLQJWKHQRWLFHRIDSSHDO,GDW7KH6HYHQWK&LUFXLW
 7KHUHFRUGVRIWKH&RXUWRI$SSHDOVUHIOHFWUHFHLSWRIWKDW DJUHHG DQG GLVPLVVHG WKH DSSHDO DV XQWLPHO\  ,G  7KH
DSSHDORQ0D\2Q-XQHZLWKWKHDSSHDO 6XSUHPH&RXUWUHYHUVHGUXOLQJWKDWLWZDVWKHGLVWULFWFRXUW¶V
VWLOO SHQGLQJ /DZUHQFH PRYHG WKH GLVWULFW FRXUW IRU UHOLHI HUURU LQ ILQGLQJ WKH PRWLRQ IRU D QHZ WULDO WLPHO\ DQG WKH
IURPMXGJPHQWSXUVXDQWWR)HG5&LY3E7KHFRXUW SODLQWLII¶VMXVWLILDEOHUHOLDQFHRQWKDWILQGLQJWKDWFDXVHGWKH
GHQLHG WKH E UHTXHVW RQ $XJXVW    2Q SODLQWLIIWRDSSHDORXWVLGHWKHWLPHOLPLW,GDW8QGHU
6HSWHPEHU/DZUHQFHWLPHO\DSSHDOHGWKDWGHQLDO WKHVH³XQLTXHFLUFXPVWDQFHV´WKH6XSUHPH&RXUWUHPDQGHG
WKHFDVHWRWKH6HYHQWK&LUFXLWZLWKLQVWUXFWLRQVWRFRQVLGHU
:H WKHQ GLVPLVVHG WKH ILUVW DSSHDO DV XQWLPHO\ RQ WKHPHULWVRIWKHSODLQWLII¶VDSSHDO,G
6HSWHPEHU/DZUHQFHY,QW¶O%KGRI7HDPVWHUV
1R  VOLS RS WK &LU 6HSW   RUGHU /DZUHQFHQRZDUJXHVWKDWWKLV&RXUWIROORZLQJ7KRPSVRQ
GLVPLVVLQJFDVHDVXQWLPHO\ILOHG VKRXOG UHYHUVH WKH GLVWULFW FRXUW¶V GHQLDO RI WKH PRWLRQ IRU
UHOLHIIURPMXGJPHQWZKLFKZRXOGDOORZWKHORZHUFRXUWWR
HQWHU D QHZ MXGJPHQW DQG FRUUHVSRQGLQJO\ WR JUDQW
/DZUHQFHDGGLWLRQDOWLPHWRSHUIHFWKLVDSSHDO
% 7KH³8QLTXH&LUFXPVWDQFHV´5XOHLV,QDSSOLFDEOH

7KLV WUDFNV WKH SURFHGXUH WKLV &RXUW RXWOLQHG LQ Lewis v. Alexander,
 )G   WK &LU  WKDW DWWRUQH\V VKRXOG IROORZ ZKHQ WKH\
7KRPSVRQ LV GLVWLQJXLVKDEOH  7KH 6XSUHPH &RXUW
GLVFRYHU DIWHU ILOLQJ DQ DSSHDO WKDW WKH DSSHDO LV XQWLPHO\ VXEVHTXHQWO\H[SODLQHGWKDW"[b]y its terms, Thompson applies