Archive for the ‘8th Circuit’ Category

8th Circuit Revised Local Rules Adopt a Mandatory Electronic Filing Requirement, Effective October 1st

Revised Eighth Circuit Rules

          Effective October 1, 2010, the local rules for the Eighth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals will be revised to require that all attorneys file electronically over the CM/ECF system.  The new rules are very important to those wishing to appeal in the Eighth Circuit because paper documents will no longer be allowed.

          According to Rule 47 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP), the Eighth Circuit is allowed to adopt its own local rules to supplement the FRAP.  The main revisions will expand on specific local rules, implementing a new electronic filing requirement.  The specific local rules that will undergo the change include filing and service under Eighth Circuit rule 25A-B and briefs under Eighth Circuit rule 28A. Below is a summary of the changes in the stated local rules that will take effect on October 1st:

Eighth Circuit Rule 25A

          The main change is that the use of the CM/ECF is mandatory for all attorneys.  The rule, however, provides an exception for pro se litigants, who will be allowed to submit paper copies.  Attorneys will be required to register to obtain a password and login to use the filing system.  Exemptions may be granted for good cause, which the clerk determines, and a form must be completed in order to apply for one.  Furthermore, the filing constitutes the official record in the appeal.  The CM/ECF will generate a Notice of Document Activity when any document is filed, which will constitute service of the document, and the attorney’s registration on the electronic system is deemed consent of the service. The clerk’s office will use the CM/ECF system to provide notice to all registered participants in a case.

Eighth Circuit Rule 25B

          Rule 25B governs the filing by a pro se litigant who doesn’t register on the electronic system.  The clerk will basically serve as an intermediary between the registered CM/ECF user, exempt attorney and the pro se litigant.  The clerk will provide the pro se litigant with a listing which will show whether a party can be served electronically by the clerk or must be served by mail by the pro se litigant.

Eighth Circuit Rule 28A

          This section deals with briefs filed by registered CM/ECF users and pro se litigants.  Registered users of the CM/ECF electronic system who are not exempt must submit their briefs by filing using the CM/ECF system.  Attorneys exempt from CM/ECF must submit their briefs through email.  Pro se litigants must submit one (1) paper copy of their brief to the clerk who will review the brief for compliance and then scan it into the CM/ECF system.  Registered CM/ECF users and the exempt attorneys must transmit ten (10) paper copies of the brief to the clerk within five (5) days of receipt of notice that the brief was reviewed and electronically filed.  Finally, an electronic version of the addendum is required for every appellant’s brief that is submitted electronically.

 

Posted by Brandon Tittle

8th Circuit reviews summary judgment denial in § 1983 suit against Russellville police officers

In an opinion filed on October 6, an Eighth Circuit panel considered an appeal from the Eastern District of Arkansas’s denial of a motion for summary judgment in a § 1983 lawsuit filed by the estate of Bobby Joe Rylee, who died after  having an altercation with Russellville police and being held in the Pope County Detention Center.  The suit alleged that the police officers used excessive force against Rylee in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the correctional officers at the detention center denied him adequate medical care in violation of due process.  The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court denied.  All of the defendants appealed the district court’s decision.

First, the Eighth Circuit determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider whether the denial of summary judgment was appropriate as to two of the Russellville police officers.  The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment as to three of the other police officers, finding that because a jury could reasonably find that the officers denied Rylee’s clearly established rights, the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity.  Finally, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment with respect to the four correctional officers.  The court held that the facts, even when considered in a light most favorable to the plaintiff, did not support the denial of qualified immunity because the evidence did not sufficiently show deliberate indifference.

Full text of the opinion can be found at: http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opns/opFrame.html.

The Arkansas Record:

Arkansas Law Review