Marlon Bartlett v. Miller

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: June 21, 2023
• Docket: 23-6058
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6058 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6058

MARLON BARTLETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SERGEANT MILLER, in his individual capacity; WILLIAM WISE, Lieutenant, in his individual capacity; DEXTER GIBBS, Assistant Superintendent,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-00164-MR)

Submitted: June 15, 2023 Decided: June 21, 2023

Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marlon Bartlett, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6058 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Marlon Bartlett appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action for failing to timely file an amended complaint and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60

motion for relief from judgment. On October 4, 2022, the district court granted Bartlett

leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the court’s order. However, through

no fault of Bartlett’s, the court inadvertently sent the October 4 order to the wrong address.

The court corrected its mistake and mailed the order to Bartlett on October 20. The court

dismissed the action 26 days later, on November 15, for Bartlett’s failure to timely file an

amended complaint. That same day, at the latest, Bartlett mailed his amended complaint.

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (stating prison mailbox rule). The court

denied Bartlett’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion, explaining that although Bartlett did not receive

30 days to respond, he had sufficient time to do so and failed to move for an extension of

the original deadline. Bartlett appeals, arguing that the court erred in not affording him 30

days from October 20 to file an amended complaint. We vacate and remand.

We review de novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), see Martin v.

Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 248 (4th Cir. 2017), and “a district court’s interpretation of its own

orders for abuse of discretion,” Wolfe v. Clarke, 718 F.3d 277, 284 (4th Cir. 2013). Upon

such review, we conclude that the district court erred in not providing Bartlett 30 days to

respond to the order granting leave to amend as required by the clear language of the court’s

order.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court's orders and remand for further

proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6058 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/21/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

VACATED AND REMANDED