![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Lack, and was intended to reflect the holding of that case. This absence is noteworthy because Rule 4(c) was enacted as a direct response to the Court’s decision in Houston v. ” 14Absent from this text is any reference to whether the Rule applies to inmates who are represented by counsel, or only to those who are proceeding pro se. Rule 4(c) states that “f an inmate files a notice of appeal in either a civil or a criminal case, the notice is timely if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. 13 Ultimately, this Contribution will argue that Rule 4(c) applies to all incarcerated litigants, regardless of whether they are pro se or represented by counsel. Specifically, circuit courts remain divided about whether the Rule is exclusive to pro se prisoners – such as the litigant in Houston – or whether its benefit may be afforded to all prisoners who personally file their notices of appeal through the prison mail system. 12 While Rule 4(c) has been amended multiple times over the nearly three decades since its promulgation, the exact scope of the Rule remains unclear. 11įollowing the Houston decision, the Advisory Committee codified the prison mailbox rule in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c). 10 Under this rule, an incarcerated person’s notice of appeal is considered “filed” on the date that it is deposited in the prison mail system, rather than the date it is actually received by the district court. 9 Recognizing both the prisoner’s reasonable efforts to effect a timely filing and the harsh consequences of finding a notice of appeal untimely, the Court created the “prison mailbox rule” and held that the notice was timely filed. 8 However, his notice was not marked “filed” by the district court until one day after the deadline passed. While incarcerated in a Tennessee prison, Prentiss Houston drafted a notice of appeal and delivered it to prison mailing authorities three days before the filing deadline. This was the situation faced by a pro se prisoner in Houston v. As a result, a notice of appeal that is deposited in a prison mail system well before the filing deadline may not be received by the district court until after the deadline has passed. 5 They must rely instead on the prison mail system, which may experience delays in the processing of inmate mail. 4These litigants cannot personally deliver a notice to the district court or call the court to verify its receipt. Incarcerated litigants who personally file notices of appeal from prison face significant obstacles to ensuring the timeliness of their filings. As such, while the notice of appeal is a “simple, one-page document,” 3its timely or untimely filing has substantial consequences for the litigant. 2 Any litigant who fails to file a timely notice thus loses their opportunity to pursue an appeal. ![]() 1The deadlines for filing a notice of appeal are prescribed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 (“Rule 4”), and the Supreme Court has held that these deadlines are “mandatory and jurisdictional” in nature. New England Patriots Fans v.In all federal cases, a litigant who wishes to appeal the decision of a district court must file a notice of appeal with that district court. The three-day grace period after mailing provided in Rule 6(b) therefore does not apply to Plaintiffs deadline for filing post-judgment motions under Rule 52(b). Instead, such a motion must be served “not later than 10 days after entry of judgment.” Rule 52(b). Rule 6(d) only adds more time to deadlines that allow or require a party to do something “within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other papers upon him.” But the ten-day deadline for serving post-judgment motions for findings does not start to run upon “service” of anything. The argument, according to the court, lacked merit: They argued that their Rule 52(b) motion was timely because the court mailed the final judgment to their counsel, thereby giving them three extra days under the “mail box rule” to serve the Rule 52(b) motion. The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration. Although the plaintiffs served a Rule 52(b) motion, the court ruled that the motion did not toll the deadline for filing a notice of appeal because the plaintiffs did not serve the motion within ten days of the entry of judgment as required under Rule 52(b). The court dismissed the appeal as untimely under Mass. After final judgment entered, the plaintiffs waited more than 30 days to file their notice of appeal. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |