Pro se appellant Jerry Artrip fails at CAFC

The outcome:


Jerry Artrip appeals the district court’s dismissal of
his case. Mr. Artrip asks us to reverse the district court
and remand so that he may file a fourth amended complaint
charging Appellees Alcoa, Inc. (“Alcoa”), Ball Corp.,
and Ball Metal Beverage Container Corp. (together,
“Ball”) with patent infringement.

We lack jurisdiction to review the dismissal of Mr. Artrip’s
claims against Alcoa. And because we find that
Mr. Artrip’s third amended complaint does not satisfy the
legal pleading standard and that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in denying leave for further amendments,
we affirm the district court’s dismissal of
Mr. Artrip’s claims against Ball with prejudice.



The problem


We have jurisdiction only if Mr. Artrip filed a timely
notice of appeal that complies with Rule 3 of the Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Smith v. Barry,
502 U.S. 244, 248–49 (1992) (“Rule 3’s dictates are jurisdictional
in nature, and their satisfaction is a prerequisite
to appellate review.”).

(...)

Among other requirements, Rule 3 states that a notice
of appeal must “designate the judgment, order, or part
thereof being appealed.” Int’l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS
Corp., 515 F.3d 1353, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis
added) (quoting Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)); see also Durango
Assocs., Inc. v. Reflange, Inc., 912 F.2d 1423, 1425
(Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding party “cannot now expand the
scope of its specifically limited notice of appeal”). Our
sister circuits have found that they do not have jurisdiction
to review orders other than those identified in the
notice of appeal. See, e.g., Doran v. J.P. Noonan Trans.,
Inc., 853 F.3d 66, 69 (1st Cir. 2017) (finding “no basis to
reverse an order” other than order designated in notice);
In re GNC Corp., 789 F.3d 505, 512 (4th Cir. 2015) (dismissing
appeal as to order not identified in notice); Stephens
v. Jessup, 793 F.3d 941, 943 (8th Cir. 2015) (finding
no jurisdiction to review order dismissing first party
where notice of appeal identified separate order only
dismissing second party).
Here, Mr. Artrip’s notice of appeal identifies only the
district court’s November 3, 2017 order dismissing the
third amended complaint against Ball. Alcoa is mentioned
only in the notice’s case caption. Although we
construe notices of appeal liberally, Mr. Artrip’s notice
does not indicate an intent to appeal the district court’s
earlier order dismissing the second amended complaint
and terminating Alcoa. See Smith, 502 U.S. at 248 (permitting
courts to find compliance “‘with the rule if the
litigant’s action is the functional equivalent of what the
rule requires’” but explaining “[t]his principle of liberal
construction does not, however, excuse noncompliance
with the Rule. Rule 3’s dictates are jurisdictional” (quoting
Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S. 312, 317
(1988))).