Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Administrative Law

Sixth Circuit Holds Untimely Notice of
Appeal Not Excused by Equitable Tolling

Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney

Summary of Decision

In Reinhart v. United States Dep't of Agric., 39 Fed. Appx. 954 (6th Cir. 2002) (unreported decision), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal from an order issued by the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) because notice of the appeal was filed untimely.

Background

Plaintiff William J. Reinhart appealed an order issued by the USDA Secretary that imposed civil penalties on him for violating the Horse Protection Act. Reinhart, 39 Fed. Appx. at 955. The order was issued on January 23, 2001, but due to a clerical error Reinhart did not receive the order until February 26, 2001, 34 days after the order was issued. See id. at 955-56. Reinhart filed his notice of appeal on March 23, 2001, approximately 60 days after the final order was issued. See id. at 955.

Analysis and Holdings

The court explained that "a party has the right to judicial review of a final administrative order imposing civil penalties" under the Horse Protection Act and that "[t]o exercise this right the party must file a notice of appeal . . . within 30 days from the date on which the final administrative order was issued." Id. (citing 15 U.S.C. § 1825(b)(2) and United States Dep't of Agric. v. Kelly, 38 F.3d 999 (8th Cir. 1994)). The court held that because Reinhart filed his notice of appeal approximately 60 days after the Secretary's order was issue, his notice of appeal was untimely. See id.

The court further held that its determination that Reinhart's notice of appeal was untimely was not affected by the fact that a clerical error prevented his receiving the Secretary's order until 34 days after it was issued. See id. It explained that "[d]espite the equities that might otherwise allow Reinhart to pursue his appeal, a statutory provision that sets the time limit for seeking review of an administrative order is 'mandatory and jurisdictional' and 'not subject to equitable tolling.'" Id. (citations and quotations omitted). See also id. (citing Stone v. I.N.S., 514 U.S. 386, 405) ("Such a time limit must be enforced with 'strict fidelity' to its terms."). It also explained that "[a]n appeal filed beyond the applicable time limit must therefore be dismissed even 'in the face of apparent injustice or an administrative agency's obvious misapplication or violation of substantive law.'" Id. (citation and quotation omitted).

The court stated that the "unique circumstances" doctrine, "a doctrine that applies 'where a party has performed an act which, if properly done, would postpone the deadline for filing his appeal and has received specific assurances by a judicial officer that this act has been properly done'" did not apply because "Reinhart never received any assurance from a judicial officer that the time limit for filing his notice of appeal had been tolled . . . ." Id. at 956. It further stated that the clerical error did not completely excuse Reinhart's untimely notice of appeal because "[p]arties have an affirmative duty to monitor the dockets to inform themselves of the entry of orders they may to appeal. . . . Therefore, the failure of a court clerk to give notice of an entry of an order is not a ground, by itself, to warrant finding an otherwise untimely appeal to be timely." Id. (citations and quotations omitted).

The case was decided on July 10, 2002; this summary was posted May 17, 2004.