RAMIREZ_PetitionFOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI_2_6_2017

More documents

Recommendations

Info

11 shown.” In re Beverly Mfg. Corp., 778 F.2d 666, 667 (11th Cir. 1985). No bad faith, culpable negligence, or culpable indifference is evident here. Second, pro se papers should be construed liberally. Like other circuits, the Eleventh Circuit does so. See, e.g., Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Ramirez was proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. In prior papers, he had informed the Eleventh Circuit that he was homeless and had been living either in shelters or on the street. He relied on access to public-library computers for legal research and drafting. And while it is not explicitly in the record, it is reasonable to infer that Ramirez did not have a printer of his own, and therefore had to rely on a third-party vendor like FedEx Kinkos. In light of all the facts and circumstances, that third-party vendor’s mistake constitutes extraordinary circumstances, or at worst excusable neglect. Third, the one-day delay was de minimis and caused no real prejudice. This is evident from opposing counsel’s gracious agreement not to oppose the acceptance of the corrected brief as timely filed. Fourth, Ramirez did not actually fail to prosecute his appeal. Although they were later ordered to be corrected, both Ramirez’s original brief and appendix had been timely filed. Ramirez timely filed the corrected brief, and the corrected appendix was filed only one day late. And his motion was explicit in stating that he was not failing to prosecute the appeal and in requesting that the appeal not be dismissed. Fifth, although Ramirez had requested and received several extensions of time, the untimely filing of the corrected appendix was the first instance that Ramirez had failed to timely file a document in that appeal. The extreme sanction of dismissal is too harsh to apply to such a venial sin. Sixth, the Eleventh Circuit routinely grants Ramirez’s requested relief in other cases—some of which present less meritorious facts. While the cases are legion, we present a contemporaneous one by way of example. In Robertson v. Social Security
12 Administration, No. 15-15549, the appendix was due on February 25, 2016. On March 15, the Eleventh Circuit issued a 11th Cir. R. 42-2(c) dismissal for failing to file the appendix. On April 4, appellant’s counsel filed an untimely 11th Cir. R. 42-2(e) motion to reinstate the appeal and attached the appendix as required. The Eleventh Circuit granted that motion and reinstated the appeal, even though the motion was filed after the fourteen-day deadline and the appendix was filed forty days after it was due. In comparison, Ramirez was not represented by counsel; he mailed his unopposed motion and appendix promptly the very next day; and the unopposed motion and corrected appendix arrived timely, three days after the corrected appendix’s due date. But while the Eleventh Circuit reinstated the Robertson appeal, it did not even consider Ramirez’s unopposed motion; it dismissed his case; and it refused to reinstate the case later. And seventh, courts of appeals should construe the requirements of the rules of procedure liberally, and mere technicalities should not preclude consideration of the merits. See, e.g., Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 316 (1988). This is especially true where, as here, many judicial and party resources have already been spent. This litigation had lasted several years; and the Eleventh Circuit, two district judges, and the parties had already expended substantial effort on it, weighing against dismissal based on a minor nonjurisdictional and technical infraction. In fact, even though he proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis, Ramirez had shown an ability to succeed on appeal because he had prevailed in his first appeal before the Eleventh Circuit in this very case. All told, Ramirez stood a good chance of obtaining his requested relief and of having the Eleventh Circuit proceed to resolve his case on the merits.
Page 1 and 2: № ____________________ IN THE SUP
Page 3 and 4: ( ii) CONTENTS PETITION CONTENTS Qu
Page 5 and 6: ( iv) Clerk Correspondence re Entry
Page 7 and 8: ( vi) ELEVENTH CIRCUIT LOCAL RULES
Page 9 and 10: 2 JURISDICTION The Eleventh Circuit
Page 11 and 12: 4 Bausch & Lomb’s brief on its ow
Page 13 and 14: 6 ARGUMENT This Court should grant
Page 15 and 16: 8 appendix, but the clerk simply di
Page 17: 10 to be entered of record.”). Li
Page 21 and 22: 14 Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S
Page 23 and 24: 16 with the requirement.” The 199
Page 25: 18 CONCLUSION Although this Court e

RAMIREZ_PetitionFOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI_2_6_2017

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?