Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-01345/USCOURTS-alnd-2_11-cv-01345-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIAM C. COLEMAN,

 Petitioner,

v.

KENNETH JONES and THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

ALABAMA,

 Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case Number: 2:11-cv-01345-VEH-JHE 

 

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On March 19, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit remanded this case to this Court “for the limited 

purpose of determining when Coleman first filed a notice of appeal in this action.” (Doc. 39). It 

was further referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for that purpose. (Doc. 40). For the 

reasons stated below, the undersigned recommends Coleman’s notice of appeal be considered 

filed on July 31, 2014.

I. Relevant Procedural History

On July 7, 2014, the Court dismissed Coleman’s petition for writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Docs. 26 & 27). On November 5, 2014, the Court received a copy of a letter, 

dated November 1, 2014, Coleman had sent to the Eleventh Circuit Clerk of Court, referencing a 

prior notice of appeal Coleman claims he had mailed to that court. (Doc. 28). On December 8, 

2014, the Court received a letter directly from Coleman, stating he had sent a timely notice of 

appeal to the Eleventh Circuit and, believing it should have been sent to this Court under Rule 

4(d), FED. R. APP. P., requested an update on the status of the appeal. (Doc. 29). On January 13, 

FILED

 2015 Jun-04 AM 09:11

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 2:11-cv-01345-VEH-JHE Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 1 of 6
2

2015, that letter was construed as a notice of appeal, deemed filed on December 8, 2014. (Doc. 

31).

Upon remand, the undersigned ordered Coleman to file a declaration under Rule 4(c)(1), 

FED. R. APP. P., either notarized or in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746, setting forth the date he 

deposited the notice of appeal in the legal mail and stating whether first-class postage was 

prepaid. (Doc. 41). Coleman’s first response included an “Affidavit of Compliance,” which did 

not comply with Rule 4(c)(1) because it failed to certify that postage was prepaid, and a copy of 

what Coleman asserted was the original notice of appeal, which was similarly deficient because 

it was neither notarized nor stated under penalty of perjury in compliance with § 1746. (Docs. 

42 & 43). In response to another order to file a compliant declaration, (doc. 44), Coleman filed a 

“Declaration of Filing of Notice of Appeal,” which certified under penalty of perjury that 

Coleman “placed a document entitled ‘Notice of Appeal and Request for a Certificate of 

Appealability’ . . . in the hands of prison authorities for mailing, via United States mail, firstclass postage prepaid, by placing same in the Bullock County Correctional Facility prison legal 

mail box on the 31st day of July, 2014,” (doc. 45). In response to an order for rebuttal, (doc. 46), 

Respondents stated Bullock Correctional Facility “has no system to track outgoing mail” so they 

could not rebut Coleman’s asserted date of mailing, (doc. 47).

II. Analysis

It is undisputed Coleman placed his notice of appeal in the prison mail on July 31, 2014. 

(Doc. 45 & 47). However, because Coleman admits he mailed his notice of appeal to the 

Eleventh Circuit instead of this Court, he seeks not only the benefit of the “prisoner mailbox 

rule” but also the benefit of the “mistaken filing rule” in Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of 

Appellate Procedure. (Doc. 42 at 2). Under the “mailbox rule,”

[i]f an inmate confined in an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil or 

a criminal case, the notice is timely if it is deposited in the institution’s internal 

mail system on or before the last day for filing. If an institution has a system 

designed for legal mail, the inmate must use that system to receive the benefit of 

this rule. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with 28 

Case 2:11-cv-01345-VEH-JHE Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 2 of 6
3

U.S.C. § 1746 or by a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date 

of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid.

FED. R. APP. P. 4(c)(1). This rule reflects the holding in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

See FED. R. APP. P. 4, Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993 Amendment. In that case, the 

United States Supreme Court held that, because pro se prisoners must mail their notices of 

appeal and necessarily lose control over them at the time of delivery to prison authorities, the 

policy grounds for the general filing rule are reversed and weigh in favor of applying the mailbox 

rule to pro se prisoners. Houston, 487 U.S. at 275. The “mistaken filing rule” states that,

[i]f a notice of appeal in either a civil or a criminal case is mistakenly filed in the court of 

appeals, the clerk of that court must note on the notice the date when it was received and 

send it to the district clerk. The notice is then considered filed in the district court on the 

date so noted.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(d).

As noted above, Rule 4(c)(1) states a notice of appeal is “timely” if it is deposited in the 

mail system on or before the last day for filing. The “prisoner mailbox rule” applies regardless 

of whether the court actually receives the notice. See United States v. Westry, No. CRIM. 05-

00206-WS, 2008 WL 5214269, at *3 (S.D. Ala. Dec. 11, 2008) (citing Gracey v. United States, 

2005 WL 1006908, *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 29, 2005) (“Furthermore, the mailbox rule applies even 

when the motion is never received or filed by the court.”) (internal quotations and citations 

omitted); Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001) (where a prisoner’s petition is 

never received by the court, “[w]e hold that Houston’s rationale applies with equal force in such 

a case”)); cf. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) (requiring only that the notice be placed in the prison mail 

system by the deadline to be timely). Nor does the rule require that it be properly addressed to 

be “timely.”

Case 2:11-cv-01345-VEH-JHE Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 3 of 6
4

Moreover, Rule 4(d) applies to both prisoners and non-prisoners so it is written from the 

perspective of the general rule for filing, which, as the Houston court noted, is the reverse of a 

prisoner’s, see 487 U.S. at 275 (“[W]hereas the general rule has been justified on the ground that 

a civil litigant who chooses to mail a notice of appeal assumes the risk of untimely delivery and 

filing, a pro se prisoner has no choice but to hand his notice over to prison authorities for 

forwarding to the court clerk.” (internal citations omitted)). Presumably, a notice is considered 

filed in the district court on the date it is noted received by the clerk of the circuit court because, 

under the general rule, that is the date it would have been filed in the district court if properly 

addressed. For a prisoner, that date is, either way, the date it was placed in the prisoner mail 

system. There is no reason Rules 4(c)(1) and (d) should not operate together. See also Larson v. 

Meek, 240 F. App’x 777, 780 (10th Cir. 2007) (holding there is no reason the “receipt” date in 

the court of appeals could not be considered the date when the pro se prisoner places the notice 

of appeal in the legal mail system).

III. Recommendation

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned RECOMMENDS Coleman’s notice of appeal 

be considered filed on the undisputed date it was placed in the prison mail system, July 31, 2014.

IV. Notice of Right to Object

Any party who objects to this report and recommendation must, within fourteen (14) days 

of the date on which it is entered, file specific written objections with the clerk of this court. 

Any objections to the failure of the magistrate judge to address any contention raised in the 

petition also must be included. Failure to do so will bar any later challenge or review of the 

factual findings of the magistrate judge, except for plain error. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986); Dupree v. Warden, 

715 F.3d 1295, 1300 (11th Cir. 2013). 

Case 2:11-cv-01345-VEH-JHE Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 4 of 6
5

To challenge the findings of the magistrate judge, a party must file with the clerk of the court 

written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings and 

recommendation to which objection is made and the specific basis for objection. The filing of 

objections is not a proper vehicle through which to make new allegations or present additional 

evidence. Furthermore, it is not necessary for a party to repeat legal arguments in objections. A 

copy of the objections must be served upon all other parties to the action.

On receipt of objections meeting the specificity requirement set out above, a United 

States District Judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report, proposed 

findings, or recommendation to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify in 

whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The district 

judge, however, need conduct a hearing only in his discretion or if required by law, and may 

consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his own determination on the 

basis of that record. The district judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or 

recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Objections not meeting the 

foregoing specificity requirement will not be considered by a district judge.

A party may not appeal a magistrate judge’s recommendation directly to the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Appeals may be made only from a final 

judgment entered by or at the direction of a district judge.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this report and recommendation upon the 

petitioner and counsel for the respondents.

Case 2:11-cv-01345-VEH-JHE Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 5 of 6
6

DONE this 4th day of June 2015.

_______________________________

JOHN H. ENGLAND, III

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:11-cv-01345-VEH-JHE Document 48 Filed 06/04/15 Page 6 of 6