Jimmy Covington, Herbert Spruill & Franklin Haskin v. Harry Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir. 1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Jimmy Covington, Herbert Spruill & Franklin Haskin v. Harry Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir. 1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“pro se litigant cannot represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action suit.”
84 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Snyder v. Woods (ared, 2024-10-03)
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Snyder v. Woods
E.D. Ark. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
pro se litigant cannot represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action suit.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Biestek v. United States
Fed. Cir. · 2025 · confidence medium
Co., 784 F.2d 829, 831 (7th Cir. 1986); Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir. 1980); Scarella v. Midwest Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matthews v. Cordeiro
D. Mass. · 2001 · confidence medium
See 28 U.S.C. § 1654 ; see, e.g., Herrera-Venegas v. Sanchez-Rivera, 681 F.2d 41 (1st Cir.1982); In re Victor Publishers, Inc., 545 F.2d 285 , *39 286 (1st Cir.1976) (per curiam); Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305 (2d Cir.1991); Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980) (“Covington as a non-lawyer is not qualified to represent his fellow inmates”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Carreras v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
4th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Singley v. Hodges
4th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir. 1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ruiz Rivera v. Dept. of Education
1st Cir. · 2000 · confidence medium
Co., 784 F.2d 829, 830-31 (7th Cir.1986); Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 63-64 (4th Cir.1980); Scarrella v. Midwest Fed.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fuller v. White
4th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
P. 3(c); Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981), Daniels is not an Appellant in this appeal
cited Cited as authority (rule) Gloria Price v. United States Navy Harry Moses Marguerite Moses (Deceased) Michael Moses Shirley Moses
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Id. at 1008 (quoting Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 , 101 S.Ct. 1990 , 68 L.Ed.2d 305 (1981)) (emphasis in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Feliciano v. DuBois
D. Mass. · 1994 · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re Victor Publishers, Inc., 545 F.2d 285, 286 (1st Cir.1976) (per curiam); Eagle Associates v. Bank of Montreal, 926 F.2d 1305 (2d Cir.1991); Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980) (“Covington as a non-lawyer *1040 is not qualified to represent his fellow inmates”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martin Sterenbuch, and Diane Sterenbuch v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service
4th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981)
cited Cited as authority (rule) ca4 1993
4th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 63 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981) 2 Wollesen alleged that the acts took place in "early 1988" and "March 1988."
cited Cited as authority (rule) ca4 1992
4th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 63 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981) 2 Although Amariglio did not make this claim under oath as required by Fed.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Green
4th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
His attempt to file a notice of appeal on behalf of Betty Green and G.F.P.R. was not effective because it was not signed by Betty Green or an attorney for G.P.F.R. * See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of Daryl A. Schultz and Norita J. Schultz, Debtors-Appellants
7th Cir. · 1991 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See Carter v. Comm'r, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (9th Cir.1986) (court lacks jurisdiction over wife's appeal where husband signs notice of appeal for both of them); cf. Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981) (notice of appeal filed by only one inmate does not bring other inmates within court's jurisdiction); see generally 9 J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Minority Employees Of The Tennessee Department Of Employment Security, Incorporated v. State Of Tennessee
6th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
Consequently, this decision should not be retroactively applied. 153 Because I disagree with the reasoning of and am concerned with the consequences from the majority's decision, I respectfully dissent. 1 The notice of appeal has been appended to this opinion as "Attachment 1." 2 The notice of appeal in Torres has been appended to this opinion as "Attachment 2." 1 Compare Farley Transportation Co. v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 778 F.2d 1365, 1368-1370 (C.A.9 1985) (failure to specify party to appeal is jurisdictional bar); Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (C.A.4 1980) (same); Li…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Minority Employees of the Tennessee Department of Employment Security, Inc. v. State of Tennessee, Department of Employment Security
6th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court in Torres began its analysis by indicating that the Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuits over whether a failure to file a notice of appeal in accordance with the specificity requirement of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) presents a jurisdictional bar to the appeal. [FN 1] 1 Compare Farley Transportation Co. v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 778 F.2d 1365, 1368-1370 (C.A.9 1985) (failure to specify party to appeal is jurisdictional bar); Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (C.A.4 1980) (same); Life Time Doors, Inc. v. Walled Lake Door…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cummings v. City Council of Gloucester
Mass. App. Ct. · 1990 · confidence medium
See Van Hoose v. Eidson, 450 F.2d 746, 747 (6th Cir. 1971); Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981); Farley Transp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dura Systems, Inc., a Pennsylvania Business Corporation, in 89-3005 v. Rothbury Investments, Ltd., a Canadian Corporation, in 89-3023
3rd Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
See Carter v. Rafferty, 826 F.2d 1299, 1304 (3d Cir.1987) (quoting West v. Keve, 721 F.2d 91, 95 (3d Cir.1983)) (“Where the litigant fails to file a timely notice of appeal within the prescribed period, the litigant loses the right to an appeal on the merits of the predicate controversy."); cert. denied, 484 U.S. 1011 , 108 S.Ct. 711 , 98 L.Ed.2d 661 (1988). 2 . 108 S.Ct. at 2407 & n. 1 (comparing Farley Transportation Co. v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 778 F.2d 1365, 1368-70 (9th Cir.1985) (failure to specify party to appeal is jurisdictional bar); Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Joe Smith, III v. C.D. White
5th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 , 101 S.Ct. 1990 , 68 L.Ed.2d 305 (1981). 1 In any event, since the second notice of appeal omits Roberson’s and Montgomery’s names entirely, it is evident that they are no longer pursuing an appeal.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. (2×)
SCOTUS · 1988 · confidence medium
Compare Farley Transportation Co. v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 778 F. 2d 1365, 1368-1370 (CA9 1985) (failure to specify party to appeal is jurisdictional bar); Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F. 2d 63, 64 (CA4 1980) (same); Life Time Doors, Inc. v. Walled Lake Door Co., 505 F. 2d 1165, 1168 (CA6 1974) (same), with Ayres v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 789 F. 2d 1173, 1177 (CA5 1986) (appeal by party not named in notice of appeal is permitted in limited instances); Harrison v. United States, 715 F. 2d 1311, 1312-1313 (CA8 1983) (same); Williams v. Frey, 551 F. 2d 932, 934, n. 1 (CA3 1977) (same).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Scott v. Mountain Mission School, Inc.
4th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
It is the only practical way to specify the party or parties taking the appeal, as required by Rule 3(c). 5 636 F.2d at 64 (emphasis in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Norman D. Carter and Cecilia P. Carter v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
It is the only practical way to specify the party or parties taking the appeal, as required by Rule 3(c) [Fed.R.App.P.]. 636 F.2d at 64 (emphasis in original).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Billy Harrison, Administrator of the Estate of Elsie Marie Harrison v. United States
8th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
Accord Cook & Sons Equipment, Inc. v. Killen, 277 F.2d 607, 609 (9th Cir.1960); Penwell v. Newland, 180 F.2d 551, 552-53 (9th Cir.1950); Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 63-64 (4th Cir.1980), cert, denied, 451 U.S. 914 , 101 S.Ct. 1990 , 68 L.Ed.2d 305 (1981); G.E.
cited Cited "see" Amzura Enterprises v. Global Financial
4th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 64 n. 2.
cited Cited "see" Figueroa v. Angelone
4th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 63-64 (4th Cir.1980).
cited Cited "see" Germany v. Townley
4th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 63-64 (4th Cir. 1980).
cited Cited "see" Robertson v. Comptroller MD
4th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir. 1980). 2
cited Cited "see" Knight v. United States
4th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir. 1980).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Thomas
4th Cir. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 63-64 (4th Cir. 1980). 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
cited Cited "see" Terry Lee McCray v. Paul F. Herzog
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir.1980).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Michael A. Kirksey
4th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir.1980).
discussed Cited "see" ca4 1993
4th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981) 2 All other motions encompassed in Case Nos. 93-6547, 93-6729, and 93-6983 were jointly drafted, briefed, filed, and, upon their denial, appealed by Buckner and Fuller.
cited Cited "see" United States of America, Small Business Administration v. Glen Mark, Jr., Claimant-Appellant, and Vanguard Investment Company, Inc.
4th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981)
cited Cited "see" Mallas v. United States
4th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See 487 U.S. at 314 n. 1, 108 S.Ct. at 2407 n. 1 (citing Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 , 101 S.Ct. 1990 , 68 L.Ed.2d 305 (1981)). .
discussed Cited "see" ca4 1993
4th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See 487 U.S. at 314 n. 1, 108 S.Ct. at 2407 n. 1 (citing Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 , 101 S.Ct. 1990 , 68 L.Ed.2d 305 (1981)) 4 This is not a case in which the plaintiffs purport to have cured a deficient notice of appeal by timely filing a collateral document specifically naming all the appealing parties.
cited Cited "see" ca4 1992
4th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir. 1975).
cited Cited "see" Edward Jacks, Jr., and Eric M. Nading v. Cloid Shuler, Deputy Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction
7th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981); see generally 9 J.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Annette Louis Defusco
4th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981).
discussed Cited "see" McClure v. Ray
4th Cir. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981) 2 Plaintiff complains that his parole hearing was not fully recorded; he was not present for the entire hearing; there was misinformation in his files which disadvantaged his chances for parole; he did not get written copies of his parole rejection within 21 days; and he was refused a transcript of his parole hearing
cited Cited "see" Ricardo Lockett Terri Lockett v. James J. Kerr, of Darby Development
4th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981)
discussed Cited "see" Edward Anaweck, Jr. v. John Brown, Warden, Steven E. Smith v. John Brown, Warden
4th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981). 3 Our review of the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate in No. 88-6594 discloses that this appeal is without merit.
cited Cited "see" Moody v. Winebrenner
4th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981)
cited Cited "see" David R. Matthews, and Kenneth M. Whitley J.C. Daniels Dene R. Francis v. William D. Leeke David I. Morgan Tony L. Strawhorn
4th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 (1981)
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Allnew v. City of Duluth (2×)
D. Minnesota · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 , 101 S.Ct. 1990 , 68 L.Ed.2d 305 (1981); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th Cir.1975); Davidson v. Coughlin, 920 F.Supp. 305, 311 (E.D.N.Y.1996); Woods v. Evatt, 876 F.Supp. 756, 773 (D.S.C.1995), aff'd, 68 F.3d 463 (4th Cir.1995) (Table); Lasley v. Godinez, 833 F.Supp. 714 , 715 n. 1 (N.D.Ill.1993); Caputo v. Fauver, 800 F.Supp. 168, 170 (D.N.J.1992), aff'd, 995 F.2d 216 (3rd Cir.1993) (Table); Avery v. Powell, 695 F.Supp. 632, 643 (D.N.H.1988); Davis v. City of Portsmouth, 579 F.Supp. 1…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." ca9 1985
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence medium
This is more than a clerical error." Id. at 747 ; see also Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980) (extending Van Hoose to require "actual signing by pro se parties desiring to join in an appeal"), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 , 101 S.Ct. 1990 , 68 L.Ed.2d 305 (1981). 14 Finally, Farley contends that Cook is not dispositive because we should apply rule 10.4 of the Rules of the Supreme Court in this case.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Farley Transportation Co. v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co.
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence medium
This is more than a clerical error.” Id. at 747 ; see also Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63, 64 (4th Cir.1980) (extending Van Hoose to require “actual signing by pro se parties desiring to join in an appeal”), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 , 101 S.Ct. 1990 , 68 L.Ed.2d 305 (1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Huddleston v. Duckworth
N.D. Ind. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Martin v. Middendorf, 420 F.Supp. 779 (D.D.C.1976) (engineer proceeding pro se failed to meet “adequate representation” standard of Rule 23(a)(4)); see also, generally, Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F.2d 63 (4th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 914 , 101 S.Ct. 1990 , 68 L.Ed.2d 305 (1981).
Jimmy COVINGTON, Herbert Spruill and Franklin Haskin, Appellants,
v.
Harry ALLSBROOK, Appellee
80-6444.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Nov 25, 1980.
636 F.2d 63
George K. Walker, Williamsburg, Va., for appellants., James Peeler Smith, Raleigh, N. C., for appellee.
Russell, Widener, Ervin.
Cited by 74 opinions  |  Published
ERVIN, Circuit Judge:

Jimmy Covington, Herbert Spruill and Franklin Haskin, North Carolina prison inmates, filed a pro se claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, asserting that they are subjected to cruel and unusual punishment because saccharin is served in drinks at the prison without an accompanying warning of its possible adverse effect on the health of the consumer. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. “Covington, et al” appealed; only Covington, who is not an attorney, signed the notice of appeal.

We affirm the dismissal of Covington’s claim on the merits, agreeing that the facts alleged do not rise to constitutional dimension. We dismiss the appeals of Spruill and Haskin, however, because they did not sign the notice of appeal and therefore did not comply with the provisions of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c).

Under Rule 3(c), “[t]he notice of appeal shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal.” The Sixth Circuit in Van Hoose v. Eidson, 450 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1971), has interpreted this to limit appellate jurisdiction to those parties who are actually named in the notice of appeal. In Van Hoose, the district court denied relief to a group of high school students seeking declaratory, injunctive and other relief in an action attacking the school hair code. The[*64] notice of appeal read “Floyd Van Hoose, et al, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. William P. Eidson, et al, Defendants-Appellees.” A timely motion to dismiss the appeal was filed, alleging that Van Hoose’s case was moot as he had now graduated and that no appeal had been properly taken for any other party. The court of appeals agreed and dismissed the appeal:

We are satisfied that the only appellant in this case is Floyd Van Hoose. Rule 3(c), Rules of Appellate Procedure, requires in part: “The notice of appeal shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal.” The only party specified in the notice of appeal filed in this case is Floyd Van Hoose. The term “et al” does not inform any other party or any court as to which of the plaintiffs desire to appeal in this case. This is more than a clerical error, [citations].
450 F.2d at 747. [1]

Our decision to extend the Sixth Circuit’s holding in a case of this sort and to require actual signing by pro se parties desiring to join in an appeal is supported by a prior holding in this circuit that a pro se prison litigant cannot represent the interests of his fellow inmates in a class action suit. [2] In Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405 (4th Cir. 1975) (per curiam), the district court had granted summary judgment against Oxendine and the class consisting of “all inmates incarcerated at the Caswell County Unit” on the prisoners’ pro se § 1983 suit. This court refused to approve certification of the class action, however, and vacated the judgment against the class, reasoning that in such an action a judgment against Oxendine would prevent other inmates from later raising the same claims; the court said

[i]t follows that unless he can “fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class,” he may not represent it. [citations]. Ability to protect the interests of the class depends in part on the quality of counsel [citation] and we consider the competence of a layman representing himself to be clearly too limited to allow him to risk the rights of others .... it is plain error to permit this imprisoned litigant who is unassisted by counsel to represent his fellow inmates in a class action, [citations],
509 F.2d at 1407.

Under Oxendine, Covington as a non-lawyer is not qualified to represent his fellow inmates. Hence, a notice of appeal signed by Covington alone cannot act to bring other unsuccessful litigants within the jurisdiction of an appellate court even though he may have captioned his case “Covington, et al” and attempted to note an appeal on behalf of his fellow plaintiffs. [3] The only means of determining which litigants are interested in pursuing an appeal is by requiring each pro se party to personally sign the notice of appeal. Imposition of this requirement does not unduly burden the prospective appellant and acts to protect the rights and interests of all parties to the litigation. It is the only practical way to specify the party or parties taking the appeal, as required by Rule 3(c).

The dismissal of Covington’s claim is affirmed and the appeals of Spruill and Has-kin are dismissed.

[*65] AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.

1

. Professors Wright, Miller, Cooper and Gressman, relying on Van Hoose, advise that “where there are multiple aggrieved parties, only those who join in the notice of appeal will be deemed to have taken an appeal.” 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper and E. Gressman, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3949 at 356 (1977).

2

. We recognize that three circuits have also read Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 to require that each pro se appellant personally sign the notice of appeal. See Theriault v. Silber, 579 F.2d 302, n.1 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 917, 99 S.Ct. 1236, 59 L.Ed.2d 468 (1979); Scarrella v. Midwest Federal Savings and Loan, 536 F.2d 1207 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 885, 97 S.Ct. 237, 50 L.Ed.2d 166 (1976); McKinney v. DeBord, 507 F.2d 501 (9th Cir. 1974). As jurisdiction vests in the court of appeals when a notice of appeal is tendered to the district court, however, such a notice is not a pleading in the district court and is not governed by Rule 11.

3

. This decision does not conflict with the settled law that an attorney is competent to sign a notice of appeal on behalf of his clients. See Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Form 1.