Skip to main content

Prisoner who through no fault of his own did not receive notice of district court order dismissing his civil action not entitled to file a late appeal to the court of appeals




The lesson of Baker v. United States Government Officials, Nos. 08-2288 and 08-2365 (February 13, 2012)— which applies to appeals of civil orders (including those under §§2244 and 2255)— is that no news for five months means check the district court dockets.  Baker filed a tort claim in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging he was harmed by second hand smoke in his prison.  While the case was pending in 2005, Baker was transferred from FCI Lisbon (the opinion notes that there is no FCI Lisbon but rather an FCI Elkton in Lisbon, Ohio, but in order to avoid confusion, the opinion adopted the prison name used in the docket entries) to FCI Lewisburg.  On July 11, 2006, the district court granted the government’s Fed.R.Civ.Pro 12(b)(6) motion, but sent the dismissal order to FCI Lisbon, [and] as a result, the order was returned to the district court.  No one in the clerk’s office made any attempt to locate Baker.  Seven months later, on February 9, 2007, the docket notes that Baker sent a letter to the clerk in December, 2005 notifying the clerk’s office of his new residence in Lewisburg. A second February 9, 2007 entry notes that Baker wrote to the clerk explaining that he had received word of the dismissal when he received a docket sheet and as a result filed neither an appeal or motion for reconsideration. He asked for a copy of the dismissal order and was sent one — on January 7, 2008!
            Before receiving the dismissal motion, Baker, on May 31, 2007, filed several motions, among them: a post-judgment motion under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 60(b); a motion to file a notice of appeal under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 4(a)(1); a motion to toll the time to take an appeal under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 4(a)(4); and a motion to reopen the time to take an appeal under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 4(a)(6). On January 16, 2008, Baker supplemented his May 31, 2007 motion, filing a motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 59(e). In all of these motions Baker blamed the prison for his not receiving the dismissal order, preventing him from filing timely motions.  On January 31, 2008, the District Court denied all of the motions.  Baker filed another motion to reconsider under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 59(c). This was denied on April 10, 2008, and Baker filed a timely appeal from that order.
Baker sought rulings that his appeal of the July 11, 2006 dismissal was timely pursuant to Fed.R.App.Pro 4(a)(4) and (6). Fed.R.App.Pro 4(a)(4) allows a district court to reopen the appeal period for fourteen days after the date to reopen is entered if it finds that the moving party did not receive notice of the order under Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 77(d) within 21 days of its entry, the motion is filed 180 days after judgment is entered or 14 days after Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 77(d) notice of entry of the judgment is received (whichever is earlier), and the district court finds no party would be prejudiced.  Fed.R.App.Pro 4(a)(6) allows the time to appeal to run from the date of a ruling on a timey filed Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 59 motion.
The Court first dealt with the Fed.R.App.Pro 4(a)(6). Baker asserted that the time to file his Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 59 motion ran from February, 2007, when he learned of the July 11, 2006 order.  Relying on Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (1977), the Court ruled that Rule 4’s time limits cannot be equitably tolled, as the time limit to appeal is derived from a statute, it is jurisdictional, and courts are without power to expand them. The delay caused by the prison sending the notice back to the district court, rather than forwarding it to Baker, could not be subtracted from the time between the issuance of the order and the time the appeal was due.  The mailbox rule for determining when a prisoner files a document does not stretch so far to allow the entry of an order to be the date a prisoner receives it.
The Court then dealt with whether under Fed.R.App.Pro 4(a)(4) his Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 59 motion could be deemed timely, allowing his appeal to proceed.  The Court ruled, on the same day it ruled on Baker’s case, in Long v. Atlantic City Police Department, No. 06-4732 (February 13, 2011), that a Fed.R.Civ.Pro 59(e) motion can be deemed timely when a prisoner alleges and proves that prison official delayed or interfered with the delivery of a final order of the district court.  Baker’s problem was not the prison though.  Rather, the error was the district clerk’s sending the notice of the dismissal to the wrong prison. Charitably, the Court noted, “We recognize that this conclusion works an unfortunate result for Baker.  The result is distressing, given that the clerks office seriously erred in failing to update Bakers address of record until more than a year had passed from when he notified the District Court of his move.”  (Perhaps this soothes Baker’s inner Mr. Bumble.)  As a result the only order the Court could review was the district court’s ruling that the Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 59(e) was not timely filed, and that, the Court of Appeals ruled, was correct.

Popular posts from this blog

Double Jeopardy Claim Falls Short on Deferential Habeas Review

In the habeas matter of Wilkerson v. Superintendent Fayette SCI, Nos. 15-1598 & 15-2673, the Third Circuit defers to a state court determination that the defendant’s conviction of both an attempted murder count and an aggravated assault count based on the same altercation did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
The evidence was that during the altercation, the defendant both struck the victim in the head with a gun and shot him in the chest. The Pennsylvania Superior Court upheld consecutive sentences on the theory that the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find the striking to support one count and the shooting the other. Despite the jury instructions’ and verdict form’s failure to require each of these discrete findings, the Third Circuit holds that the state court’s reasoning was sound enough to withstand deferential review the AEDPA’s “clearly established Federal law” limitation. “[W]here the jury instructions were merely ambiguous and did not foreclose the jury…

Mailing Threatening Communications is a Crime of Violence and a Judicial Proposal for Reform of the Categorical Approach

In United States v. Chapman, __F.3d__, No. 16-1810, 2017 WL 3319287 (3d Cir. Aug. 4, 2017), the Third Circuit held that mailing a letter containing any threat to injure the recipient or another person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876(c) qualifies as a crime of violence for the purposes of the career offender enhancements of the Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(a).The Court acknowledged in a footnote that the analysis is the same for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871, threats against the president.


The Court began its analysis by reviewing the definition of “crime of violence” and specifically the meaning of the words “use” and “physical force.”Quoting United States v. Castleman, 134 S. Ct. 1405 (2014), and Tran v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 464 (3d Cir. 2005), it defined “use” as “the intentional employment of force, generally to obtain some end,” which conveys the notion that the thing used “has become the user’s instrument.” The Court confirmed the definition of “physical force” as “force ca…

A Traffic Stop Followed by a Summons is not an Intervening Arrest for Sentencing Guidelines Purposes

In United States v. Ley, __ F.3d __, 2017 WL 5618617 (3d Cir., Nov. 22, 2017), the Third Circuit held that a traffic stop, followed by the issuance of a summons, is not an intervening arrest for the purpose of calculating a defendant’s prior convictions under USSG § 4A1.2(a)(2).   Defendant John Francis Ley received two speeding tickets on two consecutive days.  After writing each ticket, the police released Ley and informed him that the matter would proceed via summons.  No arrest was made and Ley was sentenced for both matters on the same day. The District Court, however, held that the issuance of the summons constituted an intervening arrest for the purposes of the Guidelines and each ticket therefore merited an individual criminal history point.  Ley appealed.  Looking at the ordinary meaning of both “arrest” and “summons,” as well as the Supreme Court’s history of distinguishing arrests from other interactions with law enforcement, the Third Circuit, joining three other circuits …