Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05012/USCOURTS-ca10-15-05012-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Benjamin Ryan Spence
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BENJAMIN RYAN SPENCE,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 15-5012

 (D.C. Nos. 4:14-CV-00710-GKF-FHM 

and 4:11-CR-00099-GKF-1)

(N.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, BALDOCK, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges. 

 

Defendant Benjamin Ryan Spence, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) following the dismissal of his 

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 as untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (requiring 

COA to appeal denial of motion under § 2255). The district court concluded that 

 

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously 

that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See 

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted 

without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under 

the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, 

however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 

32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 9, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-5012 Document: 01019487716 Date Filed: 09/09/2015 Page: 1 
2 

Defendant was not entitled to the benefit of the prison-mailbox rule, which treats an 

inmate’s pleading as having been filed the day he delivers it to prison authorities for 

mailing to the court. See Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1165 (10th Cir. 2005). In our 

view, however, Defendant should be given another opportunity to show that he complied 

with the requirements of the mailbox rule. A reasonable person in his shoes could easily 

have thought that he complied with all that was required of him. We therefore grant a 

COA and remand for further proceedings in the district court. 

Defendant was convicted in 2012 on one count of being a felon in possession of a 

firearm and ammunition. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). After we affirmed 

his conviction on appeal, the Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of certiorari on 

November 18, 2013. See Spence v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 660 (2013). 

Defendant, who is incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth, 

Kansas, then submitted a § 2255 motion to the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma. The motion was on a form titled “Motion Under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 To Vacate, Set Aside, Or Correct Sentence By A Person In Federal 

Custody.” R., Vol. 1 at 19 (full capitalization omitted). The form appears to be the same 

as the form in the Appendix of Forms to the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings 

for the United States District Courts. According to Defendant’s brief in this court, the 

form was provided to him by the district-court clerk. On the last page of the form 

Defendant signed a preprinted declaration (again, in conformity with the form in the 

appendix of the § 2255 Rules) that states: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under 

Appellate Case: 15-5012 Document: 01019487716 Date Filed: 09/09/2015 Page: 2 
3 

penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Motion Under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 was placed in the prison mailing system on . . . (month, date, year).” 

Id. at 30. The date filled in is November 17, 2014, and the declaration is signed with the 

same execution date. On November 21 the court received the form in an envelope that 

had no postmark but had two stamps affixed to the front. 

The government moved to dismiss Defendant’s motion as untimely. It is 

undisputed that the § 2255 motion had to be filed by November 18, 2014. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255(f); United States v. Willis, 202 F.3d 1279, 1280 (10th Cir. 2000). The motion 

therefore arrived at the district court three days too late, and the government argued that 

Defendant had not properly invoked the prison-mailbox rule. The government’s 

argument stated as follows: 

In order to establish timely filing, an inmate must either (1) prove that he 

made timely use of the prison’s legal mail system if a satisfactory system is 

available; or (2) if a legal mail system is not available, prove timely use of 

the prison’s regular mail system by submitting a notarized statement or a 

declaration under penalty of perjury indicating the date on which the 

document was given to prison officials for mailing. 

 Significantly, the option of submitting a declaration stating the date a 

document was placed in the prison mailing system is available only if the 

prison does not have a legal mail system; an inmate bears the burden of 

demonstrating that he did not have access to a legal mail system. Here, 

[Defendant] has neither alleged nor proven, and indeed, could not show, 

that USP Leavenworth does not have a legal mail system. Thus, [his] 

declaration that he placed his motion in the prison mailing system on 

November 17, 2014 does not trigger application of the prison mailbox rule. 

R., Vol. 1 at 35 (citations omitted). 

Appellate Case: 15-5012 Document: 01019487716 Date Filed: 09/09/2015 Page: 3 
4 

In a minute order on the docket sheet, the court ordered Defendant to respond to 

the motion to dismiss. His response argued that he was entitled to the rule because he 

“certified under penalty of perjury, pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that he placed his 

petition in the institutional legal mails on November 17, 2014.” Id. at 39. He asserted 

that “[he] delivered the § 2255 to the Mail Room where legal mail is sent, and did so 

between 6:30 and 7:30 A.M. of the 17th day of November, 2014, and as [he] watched, the 

mail room took it over and stamped the back of the envelope, which is the process for 

th[e] institutional legal mail system.” Id. at 40. He alleged that the institutional mailing 

stamp would be on the back of the envelope.1

 

The district court dismissed the § 2255 motion. It determined that Defendant was 

not entitled to invoke the prison-mailbox rule because “[his] allegation that he used the 

‘prison mailing system’ is insufficient to connote use of the ‘legal mail system,’” Order at 

3, United States v. Spence, No. 11-CR-99-GKR (N.D. Okla. Feb. 3, 2015) (citing Price, 

420 F.3d at 1166), and he “ha[d] neither alleged nor proven that his facility . . . does not 

have a legal mail system, or that he did not have access to that system,” id. The court 

concluded that “[b]ecause the mailbox rule does not apply if his facility has a legal 

mailing system and he did not use it, the mailbox rule [was] inapplicable here.” Id.

(citation omitted). 

 

1

 We only have a copy of the front of the envelope and therefore cannot determine 

whether that assertion is true. 

Appellate Case: 15-5012 Document: 01019487716 Date Filed: 09/09/2015 Page: 4 
5 

The district court and the government have properly stated the law of this circuit 

regarding what a prisoner must do to take advantage of the prison-mailbox rule. 

Defendant’s showing regarding the use of the prison legal-mail system does not conform 

to our precedent. Either the declaration on his § 2255 motion (which was under penalty 

of perjury) should have said that his motion “was placed in the prison legal mail system,” 

or his statement to that effect in response to the government’s motion to dismiss should 

have been made under penalty of perjury. 

But we cannot say that Defendant had fair notice of that requirement. He did 

everything that was required on the § 2255 form, which has the sanction of the § 2255 

Rules and is required by the district court’s rules, see N.D. Okla. Civ. R. 9.2(a). It is 

hardly Defendant’s fault that a form that apparently suffices in other circuits does not 

satisfy this circuit’s version of the mailbox rule. And his response to the motion to 

dismiss included the assertions demanded by the government—except that they were not 

made under penalty of perjury (a requirement that was hardly stated clearly in the 

government’s motion). 

We therefore GRANT a COA, REVERSE the dismissal of Defendant’s § 2255 

motion, and REMAND to the district court to provide Defendant with an opportunity to 

make the showing required by the district court. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

 Harris L Hartz 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 15-5012 Document: 01019487716 Date Filed: 09/09/2015 Page: 5