From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sudduth v. Arizona Attorney General

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 10, 1990
921 F.2d 206 (9th Cir. 1990)

Summary

declining to remand to the district court for a determination of timeliness

Summary of this case from Davis v. Woodford

Opinion

No. 90-15926.

Submitted December 3, 1990.

Decided December 10, 1990.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Before TANG and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.


ORDER

The district court order denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was entered on the docket on May 11, 1990. Appellant's notice of appeal from that order was dated June 8, 1990, but was not filed until June 12, 1990. Thus, the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of the entry of the judgment, as required under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a).

Because appellant is a pro se prisoner, however, his notice of appeal is deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2382, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Ordinarily, we will remand to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling that court to determine when the prisoner delivered the notice of appeal to prison authorities. See Miller v. Sumner, 872 F.2d 287 (9th Cir. 1989); Miller v. Sumner, 921 F.2d 202 (9th Cir. 1990).

However, under the facts of this case, such a remand is unnecessary. Because appellant's notice of appeal was filed in the district court on the 31st day after entry of the order dismissing his petition, it must have been delivered to prison officials within 30 days. Otherwise, the notice of appeal could not have reached the district court in time to be filed on the 31st day. We decline to remand this case to the district court to require it to repeat this rudimentary calculation. Accordingly, we deem appellant's notice of appeal to be timely. We further note that remands pursuant to Miller could be greatly reduced if prisons implemented a system whereby a prisoner's notice of appeal is stamped with the date it is received by prison authorities.

Appellant's motion "for judgment by default" is denied. Because there is no appearance by appellees, this case is deemed ready to calendar.


Summaries of

Sudduth v. Arizona Attorney General

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Dec 10, 1990
921 F.2d 206 (9th Cir. 1990)

declining to remand to the district court for a determination of timeliness

Summary of this case from Davis v. Woodford
Case details for

Sudduth v. Arizona Attorney General

Case Details

Full title:DAVID SUDDUTH, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, v. ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL; WILLIAM…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 10, 1990

Citations

921 F.2d 206 (9th Cir. 1990)

Citing Cases

Martinez v. Unites States

Id. Even without a mail log, though, for the purpose of determining "when the prisoner delivered the [legal…

U.S. v. Westry

As a general proposition, inquiries concerning application of the prison mailbox rule to a specific set of…