concerned that brown might have been permitted to quote live at large in the community free to file pleadings just like any other litigation the record assembled below now leaves no doubt brown is entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule because at all times relevant here he was an inmate confined in a civil commitment institution accordingly brown timely filed his post judgment motion when he deposited it in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing thereby extending the deadline for him to key question so far as the mailbox rule is concerned is whether brown was confined in the southeast texas transitional center and it's clear that he was because he was not free to determine when or whether he left the premises we know for example that brown could not leave the facility without the prior written approval of one of his custodians we also know about based on brown's uncontested submission that for him to get approval to leave he needed to give at least two weeks advance notice to leave the facility and we further know that it wasn't sufficient for brown to request an opportunity to leave for him to be able to do so not only because he was only allowed to go to a law library once per month based on his undisputed submission and as corroborated by the district court's factual findings but also because of the rules that he submitted to the district court after this courtroom and in this is three thirty two and three twenty six of the record also made clear that he was under a level of supervision that did not allow him to leave for any purpose or for any reason and again the district court found that over a three month period brown was only only had six request to leave the facility approved for to a hospital two of them to a law library i think this court's analysis in jackson were considered whether an individual who was on mandatory supervision and essentially a para leave makes clear that an individual can and should be considered confined or in that case incarcerated or detained even if they are occasionally allowed to leave for limited purposes and that case the individual at issue was allowed to look for a job to go to that job that he was able to secure one brown didn't have even those opportunities he was confined to the southeast texas transitional center  and like the paralegal in that jackson case i think that's enough perhaps a form of confinement with some additional liberties relative to someone in prison but confinement nevertheless once this court determines that brown was confined in the center and thus eligible for the mailbox rule set out in houston and codified and brought in general for c but the rest of the mailbox in korea straight forward i think there's no serious contention that that brown filed his motion after april eleventh which was the deadline for him to deposit that motion we know that it was received by the district court in fort worth by twelve thirty two pm on april twelfth there's simply no way that it was all on april twelfth deposited in the institutions internal mail system in houston picked up by center staff in houston delivered to a mail carrier in houston who then transported it to fort worth and had it received by the clerk's office and stamped received you can take judicial of the fact that the distance between the address of the courthouse in fort worth that's to seventy if the record and the center in use houston that's three ninety two of the record is more than two hundred sixty miles which is more for reference than the distance between penn station in new york city and union station in washington d c given that there's no way that this motion was deposited on april twelfth it must have been deposited before april twelfth and thus on or before april eleventh which is all emotion is options in a mold motion to alter or amend the complaint or alternatively for leave to amend brown's motion does say to the district court i believe you made several errors i believe you mischaracterize my complaint you said for example that i couldn't sue a government entity and then he cites modelled to say yes i could but i do also think it's clear that brown repeatedly says i would like an opportunity to more fully expand on my allegations he requested leave to amend and i don't think the submission suggest certainly given the liberality and construction to which a pro se litigant is untitled that he had put forth all of the facts that he could have possibly fit forth in submitting that motion and if you want although i don't think it's necessary on this record notice of the complaint that's filed in the related appeal pending before this court where brown makes more fulsome allegations about for example the conditions of the facilities in which he was detained obviously can take notice of the truth of those allegations but you could take notice of his ability to related the second suit was dismissed in part on claim preclusion grounds based on the relationship between some of the allegations in this case and in that one the appeal doesn't challenge that the allegations are related there is not complete overla p some claims are present and are some you know claims are present in that one but not this one some allegations are more fulsome in this case but not that one there is some overlap there yes that's i'd be happy of course to discuss why i don't think this court needs to even consider whether brown is entitled to the benefit of the mailbox rule namely because the requirements of rule for a four are not jurisdictional but if this court is convinced that the mailbox rule applies then i think on the merits can be quite straightforward under this court's well settled precedent a district court is not entitled to sue a sponte dismiss a pro se litigants complain with prejudice without prior notice and affording him an opportunity to be heard the post judgment motion that you mention which brown provided some response to the district court i don't think was that full opportunity not only because of judgment motion is limited to a twenty eight day period whereas he could have certainly sought and probably should have received additional time if he wanted to amend his complain or request a spear's hearing but also because the district court's judgment a ruling on the post judgment motion i think makes quite clear that the district court did not fully reassess the arguments and claims raised in brown's complaint he determined that there was no manifest error and that for the district court was enough so if this court were to vacate and remained and send it back i do think it would be requiring the district court to take a thorough hard look at all of the claims that brown raised in his complaint and if the court finds those wanting because of a supposed that lock of specific facts then the court can hold a spear's hearing use a questionnaire or simply say this isn't enough filing a complaint so can you just summarize for us what what case law authority of areas that as a rule fifty nine motion is subject to them to the mailbox through so i'm not sure that there is in this circuit a published opinion that holds that the rule fifty nine he motion is subject to the mailbox rule most likely i think because when you're dealing with the mailbox role you're almost always dealing with proceed litigants and so less likely to have published opinions that said this court has certainly in unpublished opinion cited in the brief suggested that the mailbox rule does apply to push judgment motions including in this court's order in this very case where the remains would be entirely unnecessary if the mailbox rule could have never applied it's also true that well this isn't really a rule for appeal notice of appeal issue this is a war civil rule five question about the timeliness of his forty nine motion i think it's a rule for question in the sense that rule for any one which implements this statutory thirty day period to notice an appeal makes clear that that thirty day deadline restarts if under rule for a four you have fought timely filed to push judgment motion which then references by implication rule fifty nine yes so it rule fifty nine is governed by rule five correct the filing rules which don't yet have a  whether or not there's a codified exception in interpretating post judgment motion for purposes of the district court i think there's no question that any limitation on filing in the district court is not jurisdictional i think it's also the case that the district court in this very case treated the motion that brown filed as timely and ruled on it as though it were to be a houston mailbox rule as distinct from application of rule four well i think your honor that  it stinks and that doesn't matter in your mind i'm not sure that it matters i think your honor the relevant question is whether the rule simply refers to filing if the rule doesn't require that filing be received will five says filing must be delivered to so and i think as distinct from received and that's an important distinction you think i don't think it's an important distinction i think in fact in houston the rule at issue there and it's quoted in justice scalia's dissent may time so i think if there's a rule five problem that's enough second level argument law the case imbedded in the remain and i think love a case imbedded in the remain and there's some parts of this court's opinion that i not sure i want to be a lot of the case so at the very least this court has already decided it no one has asked you to reconsider it so i think i think that's enough coming i mean obviously this is just my opinion coming superbly prepared there's no adversary so that that moderate viewpoint is questions are coming from if since you happen to know it which i appreciate what's your thought on that right if memory serves and it must top that if memory serves occurred with this case was talking about language in rule twenty five since amended that referred to i believe receipt by the clerk's office and i think that what you're saying is that rule five does not say receipt it's liver it simply says delivery i think in this case it's enough that it's been delivered to the clerk's office in the same sense that in huge it was filed with the clerk's office because the rule and the statute don't specify what filing requires just like they don't specify what delivery requires so it's essentially the same analysis it's certainly open to this court from a jurisdictional perspective but it's also i think an analog of a few servers locked additionally while this obviously isn't discussed in the briefing because there was no response paraphrasing that objection while it i think is sufficient that party has their rule fifty nine motion treated as timely filed for purposes of the rule forty four inquiry as in a forfeiture of an objection to the timeliness of the post judgment motion is sufficient i think even if that were the case that the post judgment motion were untimely under rule five which again nobody said and you certainly don't have to i still think that this court could say that for purposes of its jurisdiction it was sufficient that this motion was filed with the district court and again that would be simply under the rule for c inquiry you know if this court whether or not r certainly conduct an independent inquiry and say it was filed in the district court when it was hard me when it was deposited when it was deposited in the mail so so long as you get that far and i realize again judg to return to your question that this court has held that the mailbox rule there you have expressed some reluctance to extend the mailbox rule to broader context i think that as you pointed out in cooper if the mailbox rule extends to the filing of complaints presumably also subject insulin then the mailbox rule should extend this far and your dissent pointed out that there's not really a principled reason to stop at the filing of the complaint if a complaint why not something else and i think this this is that something else and also finally in your question i do think there are cases cited in the brief in which other circuits have held so for you to hold that rule fifty nine emotion is not eligible for the mill box rule would i think create a clear circuit split with the decision of other cases not only i believe a an incorrect decision under this court's precedent but also an unnecessary one because again the satisfaction of rule for a four is not jurisdictional so this court doesn't need to reach the question at all if there are no other questions on the timeliness issue again i think the merits are fairly straightforward the dismissal here was obviously with prejudice not without prejudice there's i think no way to determine that this was brown's best case the dismissal repeatedly says lack of specific facts not enough facts things of that nature it's not put to use the language of hell first king it's not obvious from the record that brown couldn't have done more he said he had limited access to a law library the pleadings were made in the other case given all those facts i think that the proper remedy or the proper disposition of this