Page:United States Reports 502 OCT. TERM 1991.pdf/403

 502us2$20Z 01-22-99 14:22:41 PAGES OPINPGT

Cite as: 502 U. S. 244 (1992)

245

Opinion of the Court JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 250.

Steven H. Goldblatt argued the cause and filed briefs for petitioner. David H. Bamberger argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of Maryland, Evelyn O. Cannon, Richard Kastendieck, and Glenn Bell, Assistant Attorneys General, and Glen K. Allen. Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court. Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure conditions federal appellate jurisdiction on the filing of a timely notice of appeal. In this case, we hold that a document intended to serve as an appellate brief may qualify as the notice of appeal required by Rule 3. I While an inmate at the Maryland State Penitentiary, petitioner William Smith filed a pro se action against two prison administrators, seven corrections officers, two state psychologists, and named respondent Dr. Wayne Barry, a private physician. Suing under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, Smith alleged that he suffered from a psychogenic pain disorder and that the defendants’ refusal to provide him with a wheelchair constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Smith further alleged that the officers used excessive force against him, also in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The District Court dismissed Dr. Barry as a defendant on the ground that he did not act under color of state law when treating Smith and therefore was not subject to suit under § 1983. App. 5–6. The case proceeded to trial in 1988, following appointment of counsel. After Smith presented his case in chief, the District Court directed a verdict for the prison administrators and officers on Smith’s wheelchair