Tatum v. Montgomery County (INMATE 2)

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama
DecidedJune 27, 2022
Docket2:20-cv-00241
StatusUnknown

This text of Tatum v. Montgomery County (INMATE 2) (Tatum v. Montgomery County (INMATE 2)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tatum v. Montgomery County (INMATE 2), (M.D. Ala. 2022).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

ANTONIO OSCAR TATUM, ) Reg. No. 17503-002, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:20-CV-241-WHA-SMD ) MONTGOMERY COUNTY, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

OPINION AND ORDER

Pro se Plaintiff Antonio Tatum, a federal inmate incarcerated at FCI Marianna in Marianna, Florida, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint on April 13, 2020. Prior to service of the Complaint, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss complaint without prejudice. Doc. 20. The Court construed Plaintiff’s motion as a notice of dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and entered an Order and Final Judgment on July 17, 2020. Doc. 22. On June 16, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appeal, considered a Notice of Appeal from the judgment entered on July 17, 2020. Doc. 29. Under the prison mailbox rule, Plaintiff’s notice of appeal is deemed filed on the date he delivered it to prison authorities for mailing—presumptively June 10, 2022, the day he signed it. See Bonilla v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 535 F. App’x 891, 893 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (noting that “for purposes of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1), a pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal is ‘filed’ on the date that the prisoner delivers the notice to prison authorities, rather than the date on which the court clerk receives the notice” (citing Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270–73 (1988)).

Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that a notice of appeal “must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The timely filing of a notice of appeal is both “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Pinion v. Dow Chemical, U.S.A., 928 F.2d 1522, 1525 (11th Cir.1991) (citations omitted). Under Rule 4(a)(5), a federal district court is authorized to extend the time to file a notice of appeal “if . . . a party so moves no later than 30 days

after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires” and “that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i)–(ii). As the final judgment was entered July 17, 2020, the deadline for Plaintiff to file his notice of appeal under Rule 4(a)(1) was August 17, 2020. Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on June 10, 2022—well outside of Rule 4(a)(5)’s 30-day period for moving for an

extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Because Plaintiff’s notice of appeal is filed outside the 30-day period for moving for an extension of time to appeal the judgment, the Court finds he has not met the time limits in Rule 4(a)(5), and thus, the Court cannot grant an extension irrespective of any good cause or excusable neglect. See Cavaliere Allstate Ins. Co., 996 F.2d 1111, 1114 (11th Cir. 1993) (holding that appellant who failed to meet

both the 30-day deadline for timely notice of appeal and the second 30-day deadline for filing a motion for extension of time was not entitled to initiate the “excusable neglect or good cause” inquiry of Rule 4(a)(5) and district court “had no choice but to deny his motion”). In an abundance of caution, the Court construes Plaintiff’s notice of appeal as a motion to reopen the time for an appeal under Rule 4(a)(6). Rule 4(a)(6) authorizes a

district court to reopen the time to file an appeal, but only if the following conditions are satisfied: (A) the court finds that the moving party did not receive notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry of the judgment or order sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry;

(B) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within 14 days after the moving party receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier; and

(C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced.[1]

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Even if all three conditions are met, the Court has discretion to decide whether to reopen the time to appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (stating that a court “may” reopen the time to appeal if the above conditions are met). The record in this matter affirmatively shows that copies of the July 17, 2020, order and final judgment were mailed to Plaintiff at this last known mailing address, which at the time was the U. S. Penitentiary in Atlanta, Georgia. There is no indication on the record that Plaintiff did not receive his copy of the July 17, 2020, order and final judgment. A review of Plaintiff’s notice of appeal reveals he simply seeks to file an appeal. There is no indication much less allegation that he did not receive notice of the July 17,

1 Rule 77(d) provides that “the clerk must serve notice of the entry [of an order or judgment], as provided in Rule 5(b), on each party who is not in default for failing to appear.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(d)(1). Rule 5(b) provides that “[a] paper is served under this rule by . . . mailing it to the person’s last known address - in which event service is complete upon mailing.” Rule 5(b)(2)(C), Fed. R. Civ. P. 2020, order and final judgment, and the Court docket reflect copies of these Court documents were mailed to Plaintiff at his last known mailing address on that date.

Nonetheless, almost two years following entry of the July 17, 2020, judgment, Plaintiff filed notice of his desire to appeal the Court’s July 17, 2020, ruling. Under the circumstances, the Court, in its discretion, concludes that re-opening of the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) is not merited. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal, considered to contain a motion to

extend the time for filing a notice of appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i) or a motion to reopen the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) (Doc. 29), and a motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis (Doc. 29) are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that, under the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 28

U.S.C. § 1915 (as amended), Plaintiff is required to pay the requisite $505.00 fee for filing this Notice of Appeal. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1.

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

Related

Houston v. Lack
487 U.S. 266 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Dominic M. Cavaliere v. Allstate Insurance Company
996 F.2d 1111 (Eleventh Circuit, 1993)
Mario Simbaqueba Bonilla v. U.S. Department of Justice
535 F. App'x 891 (Eleventh Circuit, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tatum v. Montgomery County (INMATE 2), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tatum-v-montgomery-county-inmate-2-almd-2022.