Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. Of Chicago, No. 16-658: Petitioner Chamaine Hamer’s Title VII action was dismissed at summary judgment, and final judgment was entered. A week before the 30-day deadline for her notice of appeal, Hamer’s attorneys moved to withdraw as counsel, and sought a two-month extension of the notice of appeal filing date. The District Court granted the motions without objection from respondents, and Hamer appealed to the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit, on its own initiative, found that Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C)’s limit on extensions to 30 days was jurisdictional, and that Hamer’s appeal was thus untimely. The Court today, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Ginsburg, vacated and remanded, holding that only an appeal filing deadline prescribed by statute will be regarded as “jurisdictional,” while a deadline limited only in a court-made rule is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to forfeiture if not properly raised by the appellee. Here, because Rule 4(a)(5)(C), rather than the statutory deadlines in 28 U.S.C. §2107, limits the length of the extension granted, the time prescription is not jurisdictional.
The Court's decision is available here.