Background
David J. Rudometkin sued the Secretary of the Army under the Freedom of Information Act. The district court denied his motion for a preliminary injunction on December 4, 2024. Rudometkin’s deadline to appeal was 60 days because the defendant was a federal officer sued in an official capacity.
The district court received Rudometkin’s notice of appeal on February 11, 2025, 69 days after entry of the order. The filing stated that Rudometkin had not received the order, had learned of it through a third party, and requested an extension under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) and relief under Rule 4(a)(6).
The Court’s Holding
The D.C. Circuit held that a pro se notice of appeal should be construed to include a Rule 4(a)(5) or Rule 4(a)(6) motion when it can reasonably be read as recognizing that the appeal is late, explaining the lateness, and requesting relief. Whether a district court should have construed a pro se filing that way is reviewed de novo.
Rudometkin’s filing satisfied that standard because it identified the lack of timely notice, explained how he learned of the order, and expressly requested additional time under the applicable rules. Because only the district court may extend or reopen the appeal period, the circuit ordered a limited remand for that court to decide the motions, held the appeal in abeyance, and expressed no view on whether Rudometkin ultimately qualified for relief.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se notice of appeal can also function as a motion to extend or reopen the appeal period even if it is not separately captioned as a motion.
- The filing must reasonably communicate awareness of the delay, the reason for it, and a request for relief from the deadline.
- The limited remand did not make Rudometkin’s appeal timely; the district court must still determine whether Rule 4(a)(5) or Rule 4(a)(6) permits relief.
Why It Matters
The decision establishes a practical standard for construing late pro se notices of appeal while preserving the jurisdictional character of civil appeal deadlines. Courts must examine what a filing substantively communicates rather than rely solely on its title or technical form.
At the same time, liberal construction does not itself excuse untimeliness. A litigant must file within the statutory windows for seeking relief, and the district court must find that the applicable requirements for extending or reopening the deadline are satisfied.