Meek v. Brackens

Fifth Circuit

Meek v. Brackens

194 F. App'x 247

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 22, 2006

Docket05-11204

StatusUnpublished

This text of 194 F. App'x 247 (Meek v. Brackens) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Meek v. Brackens, 194 F. App'x 247 (5th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Leroy B. Meek, Texas prisoner # 505329, appeals the dismissal of his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Meek had 30 days from the entry of the June 30, 2005, judgment to file a timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Meek’s pro se August 12, 2005, notice of appeal was untimely. See id.

A district court may grant a defendant an additional 30 days in which to file a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5). Meek’s notice of appeal, which was filed within this additional 30-day period, sufficed as a motion under Rule 4(a)(5). See United States v. Golding, 739 *248 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir.1984); see also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (holding that a notice of appeal submitted by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed on the date the prisoner submits it to prison officials for mailing).

Accordingly, Meek’s appeal is held in abeyance, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for a ruling under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5). Upon ruling, the district court shall promptly return the case to this court for dismissal or further proceedings, as may be appropriate.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Leroy B. Meek, Texas prisoner # 505329, appeals the dismissal of his complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Meek had 30 days from the entry of the June 30, 2005, judgment to file a timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Meek’s pro se August 12, 2005, notice of appeal was untimely. See id.

A district court may grant a defendant an additional 30 days in which to file a notice of appeal upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5). Meek’s notice of appeal, which was filed within this additional 30-day period, sufficed as a motion under Rule 4(a)(5). See United States v. Golding, 739 *248 F.2d 183, 184 (5th Cir.1984); see also Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) (holding that a notice of appeal submitted by a pro se prisoner is deemed filed on the date the prisoner submits it to prison officials for mailing).

Accordingly, Meek’s appeal is held in abeyance, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for a ruling under Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5). Upon ruling, the district court shall promptly return the case to this court for dismissal or further proceedings, as may be appropriate.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 F. App'x 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meek-v-brackens-ca5-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack