U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART III— COURT OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES › Chapter CHAPTER 47— COURTS OF APPEALS

28 U.S.C. § 711

Clerks and employees

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Each court of appeals may appoint a clerk who shall be subject to removal by the court.(b) The clerk, with the approval of the court, may appoint necessary deputies, clerical assistants and employees in such number as may be approved by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Such deputies, clerical assistants and employees shall be subject to removal by the clerk with the approval of the court.(c) The clerk shall pay into the Treasury all fees, costs and other moneys collected by him and make returns thereof to the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts under regulations prescribed by him.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 920.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §§ 221 and 222, 544 and 546 and District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., § 11–204 (Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 517, § 2, 26 Stat. 826; Feb. 9, 1893, ch. 74, § 4, 27 Stat. 435; July 30, 1894, ch. 172, § 1, 28 Stat. 160; June 6, 1900, ch. 791, § 1, 31 Stat. 639; Mar. 3, 1901, ch. 854, § 224, 31 Stat. 1224; June 30, 1902, ch. 1329, 32 Stat. 528; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 124, 125, 36 Stat. 1132; Aug. 23, 1912, ch. 350, 37 Stat. 412; Feb. 22, 1921, ch. 70, § 7, 41 Stat. 1144; June 1, 1922, ch. 204, title II, 42 Stat. 616; Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 265, 42 Stat. 1488; May 21, 1928, ch. 659, 45 Stat. 645).

This section consolidates section 546 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., with parts of sections 221, 222, and 544 of such title and a part of section 11–204 of the District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed. Other provisions of such sections are incorporated in sections 604, 713, 954, 956, 961, and 962 of this title. Some provisions of section 11–204 of the District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., were retained in that code. (See reviser’s note under section 604 of this title.)

Discrepancies between such section 11–204 of District of Columbia Code, 1940 ed., and the more general provisions of title 28 were eliminated by adopting the more general provisions.

Words “Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts” were substituted for “Attorney General,” in view of the act of Aug. 7, 1939, ch. 501, § 6, 53 Stat. 1226, 28 U.S.C., 1940 ed., following § 446.

A provision that the returns should be filed annually was changed to place the times of accounting within the discretion of the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, who has supervision over such accounts. (See section 604 of this title.)

This section is in harmony with section 671 of this title as to accounting similarly by the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

“Court of appeals” was substituted for “circuit court of appeals” to conform to section 43 of this title.

The provision that each clerk shall be removable by the court is new. Section 222 of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., provided that deputies might be removed at the pleasure of the clerk, subject to the court’s approval, and there was no term of office specified for the clerk and no provision for his removal.

The words “and other necessary employees” were added in subsection (b) to supply an omission of existing law and to give statutory authority for the appointment of necessary employees for which compensation is annually appropriated.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1931–2024 · leading case: Edward M. Farguson v. Mbank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358 (5th Cir. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Edward M. Farguson v. Mbank Houston, N.A., 808 F.2d 358 (5th Cir. 1986). “28 U.S.C. § 711 (c). As an additional non-monetary sanction, we further order that neither the clerk of this court, nor the clerk of any federal court over which we have jurisdiction, where Farguson has been ordered to pay sanctions, shall accept any further filings by Farguson…”
L.T. Ruth Coal Co. v. Big Sandy Coal & Coke Co. (In Re L.T. Ruth Coal Co.), 66 B.R. 753 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. 1986). “28 U.S.C. §§ 711 (a), 751(a). Thus these courts, and the bankruptcy courts ( 28 U.”
Goins v. Decaro, 241 F.3d 260 (2d Cir. 2001). “See 28 U.S.C. §§ 711 (c), 751(e) (1994) (requiring clerks of courts of appeals and district courts to pay all fees “into the Treasury”).”
Union Pac. R.R. v. United States, 208 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1975). “DISCOUNT AND PREMIUMS In additional defense 6, also involving bond discount and expense, the Government contends that plaintiff erroneously failed to treat as “interest,” under section 711 (a) (2) (B) ( 28 U.S.C. § 711 (a) (2) (B) (1952)), amortized bond discount and expense for…”
Blackmer v. United States, 49 F.2d 523 (D.C. Cir. 1931). · cites it 2× “” Section 1 of the aet (28 USCA § 711) provides that, if a citizen of the United States while abroad refuses to respond to letters *530 rogatory, the court out of which such letters issued may authorize the issuance of a subpoena for such citizen to appear before the court at…”
In re the Issuance of a Subpoena Upon Thompson, 213 F. Supp. 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1963). · cites it 2× “” (2) The legislative history of the 1948 Revision of the Judicial Code indicates that when the Walsh Act (formerly 28 U.S.C. §§ 711 , 712) was superseded by Section 1783 it was not the intention of Congress to change the meaning of the Walsh Act.”
Dood D. McDougal v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 818 F.2d 453 (5th Cir. 1987). “McDougal seeks only to delay the inevitable, and in so doing, he has occasioned the waste of limited governmental and judicial resources, unduly impeding the court’s ability to resolve the meritorious claims of other litigants. This abuse of the system and citizenry cannot be…”
Braquet v. Comm'r, 336 F. App'x 432 (5th Cir. 2009). “We also deny Braquet’s “Motion to Strike 28 U.S.C. §§ 711 and 956, Fed. R.App. P. 27(b), and 5th Cir.”
Holmes v. Pulliam (W.D. Tex. 2023). · cites it 2× “28 U.S.C. § 711 (c). CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Verified Complaint (ECF No.”
Jackson v. Deputy Warden Reginald Clark (M.D. Ga. 2024). “(citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 711 (c), 751(e) (requiring clerks of courts to pay fees “into the Treasury”)).”
Dixon v. Hunt (S.D. Ohio 2020). “Clerks of Court, like defendant Hunt, are considered federal employees and court officers of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts under 28 U.S.C. § 711 . See also Dixon vy. Opacich, No.”
Three Arrows Capital, Ltd & Christopher Farmer (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2023). “The Walsh Act, then codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 711–718, satisfied the due process requirements of notice and opportunity to be heard.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.