In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 16‐3784
JORGE BAEZ‐SANCHEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United
States,
Respondent.
__________________
No. 17‐1438
DAVID BISHOP and ERIC LISH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs‐Appellants,
v.
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INTERNATIONAL,
Defendant‐Appellee.
____________________
JURISDICTIONAL SCREENING ORDERS
____________________
JULY 10, 2017
2 Nos. 16‐3784, 17‐1438
____________________
Before WOOD, Chief Judge, in chambers.
WOOD, Chief Judge. This court carefully screens all appeals
and other matters filed with it to ensure that there are no ju‐
risdictional problems, either at the district court or agency
level or before us. In conducting this screening, we rely on the
jurisdictional information furnished by the parties. Seventh
Circuit Rule 3(c)(1) requires the docketing statement filed by
the appellant (or petitioner, as the case may be) to “comply
with the requirements of Circuit Rule 28(a).” Seventh Circuit
Rule 28(a) addresses the later briefing stage, but the net effect
of Circuit Rules 3(c)(1) and 28(a) is to require the same juris‐
dictional information for both docketing and briefing. With
the important exception of pro se submissions, the court
screens all briefs once they are filed to ensure that they in‐
clude all the necessary information about the jurisdiction of
both the district court (or agency) and the court of appeals.
FRAP 28(b) addresses the appellee’s brief; it allows the appel‐
lee to omit the jurisdictional statement “unless the appellee is
dissatisfied with the appellant’s statement.”
These requirements may seem straightforward, but a dis‐
tressing number of briefs filed in this court do not comply
with the requirements of FRAP 28, as fleshed out in Circuit
Rule 28. The two matters before me illustrate some common
mistakes. I am issuing this opinion in the hope that attorneys
practicing in the Seventh Circuit, as well as our pro se litigants,
will take heed and avoid these errors in the future.
I begin with a review of the rules governing jurisdictional
statements in briefs. FRAP 28(a)(4) describes the jurisdictional
statement required for an appellant or someone petitioning
Nos. 16‐3784, 17‐1438 3
from an agency order; as FRAP 20 provides, all references in
this opinion to appellants or appellees apply equally to peti‐
tioners and respondents. FRAP 28(a)(4) sets out the four criti‐
cal points that must be included in all jurisdictional state‐
ments: (1) the basis for the district court or agency’s jurisdic‐
tion; (2) the basis of the appellate court’s jurisdiction; (3) the
relevant dates demonstrating that the appeal or petition is
timely; and (4) information establishing either finality or the
existence of a relevant exception to the final‐judgment rule.
Circuit Rule 28(a) explains what information is needed to sat‐
isfy these requirements. Although this part of the rule is ra‐
ther long, it is worth reproducing in full here:
(a) Appellantʹs Jurisdictional Statement. The jurisdic‐
tional statement in appellant’s brief, see FED. R. APP. P.
28(a)(4), must contain the following details:
(1) The statement concerning the district court’s ju‐
risdiction shall identify the provision of the consti‐
tution or federal statute involved if jurisdiction is
based on the existence of a federal question. If juris‐
diction depends on diversity of citizenship, the
statement shall identify the jurisdictional amount
and the citizenship of each party to the litigation. If
any party is a corporation, the statement shall iden‐
tify both the state of incorporation and the state in
which the corporation has its principal place of
business. If any party is an unincorporated associa‐
tion or partnership the statement shall identify the
citizenship of all members. The statement shall sup‐
ply similar details concerning the invocation of
supplemental jurisdiction or other sources of juris‐
diction.
4 Nos. 16‐3784, 17‐1438
(2) The statement concerning appellate jurisdiction
shall identify the statutory provision believed to
confer jurisdiction on this court and the following
particulars:
(i) The date of entry of the judgment or decree
sought to be reviewed.
(ii) The filing date of any motion for a new trial
or alteration of the judgment or any other mo‐
tion claimed to toll the time within which to ap‐
peal.
(iii) The disposition of such a motion and the
date of its entry.
(iv) The filing date of the notice of appeal (to‐
gether with information about an extension of
time if one was granted).
(v) If the case is a direct appeal from the decision
of a magistrate judge, the dates on which each
party consented in writing to the entry of final
judgment by the magistrate judge.
(3) If the appeal is from an order other than a final
judgment which adjudicates all of the claims with
respect to all parties, counsel shall provide the in‐
formation necessary to enable the court to deter‐
mine whether the order is immediately appealable.
Elaboration will be necessary in the following cases
although the list is illustrative rather than exhaus‐
tive:
(i) If any claims or parties remain for disposition
in the district court, identify the nature of these
claims and the ground on which an appeal may
be taken in advance of the final judgment. If
Nos. 16‐3784, 17‐1438 5
there has been a certificate under Fed. R. Civ. P.
54(b) or if this is an appeal by permission under
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), give the particulars and de‐
scribe the relation between the claims or parties
subject to the appeal and the claims or parties
remaining in the district court.
(ii) If the ground of jurisdiction is the “collateral
order doctrine,” describe how the order meets
each of the criteria of that doctrine: finality, sep‐
arability from the merits of the underlying ac‐
tion, and practical unreviewability on appeal
from a final judgment. Cite pertinent cases es‐
tablishing the appealability of orders of the
character involved.
(iii) If the order sought to be reviewed remands
a case to a bankruptcy judge or administrative
agency, explain what needs to be done on re‐
mand and why the order is nonetheless “final.”
(iv) Whenever some issues or parties remain be‐
fore the district court, give enough information
to enable the court to determine whether the or‐
der is appealable. Appeals from orders granting
or staying arbitration or abstaining from deci‐
sion as well as appeals from the grant or denial
of injunctions require careful exposition of juris‐
dictional factors.
The rules for an appellee’s jurisdictional statement do not
consume as much space, but they are equally important. As
noted above, FRAP 28(b) exempts the appellee from filing a
6 Nos. 16‐3784, 17‐1438
jurisdictional statement unless it is “dissatisfied” with the ap‐
pellant’s statement. Circuit Rule 28(b) directs that “[t]he ap‐
pellee’s brief shall state explicitly whether or not the jurisdic‐
tional summary in the appellant’s brief is complete and correct.
If it is not, the appellee shall provide a complete jurisdictional
summary.” (Emphasis added.)
The appellee cannot simply assume that the appellant has
provided a jurisdictional statement that complies with the
rules. Common problems in appellants’ jurisdictional state‐
ments include, in federal question cases where jurisdiction
depends on 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the failure to specify the partic‐
ular statute or constitutional provision at issue, and in diver‐
sity cases, failure to distinguish between citizenship (required
by 28 U.S.C. § 1332) and residency (irrelevant) and, for organ‐
izations such as partnerships, LLPs, and LLCs, the failure to
work back through the ownership structure until one reaches
either individual human beings or a formal corporation with
a state of incorporation and a state of principal place of busi‐
ness.
The job of the appellee is to review the appellant’s jurisdic‐
tional statement to see if it is both complete and correct. These
terms are not synonyms. A statement might be complete in
the sense of covering all required topics, yet contain inaccura‐
cies. Alternatively, everything furnished might be correct, but
the statement might be missing something critical, such as the
citizenship of a party, the particular statute at issue, or the
dates on which the court’s jurisdiction depends. If the appel‐
lant’s statement is not complete, or not correct, the appellee
must file a “complete jurisdictional summary.” It is not
enough simply to correct the misstatement or omission and
“accept” the balance of the appellant’s statement.
Nos. 16‐3784, 17‐1438 7
The Seventh Circuit, like its sister circuits, pays careful at‐
tention to the parties’ jurisdictional statements, because “for
centuries it has been recognized that federal courts have an
obligation … to assure themselves of their own jurisdiction.”
Kelly v. United States, 29 F.3d 1107, 1113 (7th Cir. 1994). The
Seventh Circuit’s Clerk’s Office has prepared a checklist for
the use of litigants; that checklist is available on the court’s
website. See http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/forms/check.pdf.
The court’s Practitioner Handbook for Appeals, also available on
the website, http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/forms/Hand‐
book.pdf, provides further guidance for counsel and for pro se
litigants. Those who take advantage of these resources should
not run into any problems when the clerk’s office scrutinizes
whatever the party has filed; those who do not often find their
briefs returned to them for the correction of deficiencies. See
United States v. Naud, 830 F.2d 768, 769 (7th Cir. 1987) (per cu‐
riam) (briefs that do not comply with Circuit Rule 28 will not
be accepted).
Both of the cases I have consolidated for purposes of this
in‐chambers opinion have inadequate jurisdictional state‐
ments. In Baez‐Sanchez v. Sessions, No. 16‐3784, the respondent
Attorney General of the United States submitted the follow‐
ing Statement of Jurisdiction: “Mr. Baez‐Sanchez’s jurisdic‐
tional statement is correct.” This says nothing about com‐
pleteness, and so the brief must be returned to the Depart‐
ment of Justice. If the Department concludes that Mr. Baez‐
Sanchez’s jurisdictional statement is both complete and cor‐
rect, it should say so in the amended brief. If petitioner’s ju‐
risdictional statement is not complete, then the Attorney Gen‐
eral must furnish a full jurisdictional statement that complies
with FRAP 28(a) and Circuit Rule 28(a).
8 Nos. 16‐3784, 17‐1438
The jurisdictional statement furnished in Bishop v. Air Line
Pilots Association, Int’l, No. 17‐1438, has the mirror‐image
problem. It says “Appellants’ jurisdictional statement pro‐
vides a complete jurisdictional summary.” Fine, but what
about correctness? Once again, the court must send this back
to the appellees. They must review the appellants’ jurisdic‐
tional statement for both completeness and correctness, and if
the statement is wanting on either score, they must supply a
comprehensive statement that complies with FRAP 28(a) and
Circuit Rule 28(a).
There is no reason why, month after month, year after year,
the court should encounter jurisdictional statements with
such obvious flaws. This imposes needless costs on everyone
involved. The briefs filed by respondent Sessions and appel‐
lee Air Line Pilots are STRICKEN. Each one must file a new
brief within seven days of this order; the new brief must con‐
tain a jurisdictional statement that complies with all of the re‐
quirements of FRAP 28(b) and Circuit Rule 28(b), and if nec‐
essary, statements that comply with FRAP 28(a) and Circuit
Rule 28(a). I hope that this opinion will prevent the same
problems from continuing to arise.
So ordered.