1 We do not here address situations in which a prison maintains

fac ilities for inmates to deposit legal mail directly into a

mailbox of the U.S. Postal Service, and therefore the pro se prisoner plaintiff in fact sends legal filings via the U.S. Postal

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 94-50782

CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS COOPER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

O. A. BROOKSHIRE, Sheriff of

Ector County, Texas, ET AL.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

November 22, 1995

Before SMITH, WIENER, AND DeMOSS, Circuit Judges:

WIENER, Circuit Judge:

The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether, for the

purposes of F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 5(e), a prisoner's pro se complaint is

"filed" on the date it is properly delivered to prison officials

pur suant to the prison's established procedures for prisoners'

mail, 1 rather than the date it is received by the clerk of court.Service.

2 See Dory v. Ryan , 999 F.2d 679 (2d Cir. 1993)

, m odified on

reh'g on other grounds

, 25 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1994); G arvey v.

Vaughn

, 993 F.2d 776 (11th Cir. 1993) ; Lewis v. Richmond City

Police Department

, 947 F.2d 733 (4th Cir. 1991); see also Faile v. Upjohn , 988 F.2d 985, 988 (9th Cir. 1993) ("[W]e see no reason to

tre at other civil `filing' deadlines differently than the filing

for a civil appeal.")

.

3 The Ector County of ficials contended at oral argument that

Cooper used the U.S. Postal Service to mail the complaint; however,

the record clearly establishes that Cooper in fact used the

prison's mailing system.

2 Agreeing with the conclusions uniformly reached by all four circuit

courts that have considered this question, 2 we hold that PlaintiffAppellant Christopher Columbus Cooper's complaint against prison

officials in Ector County, Texas (Ector County officials) should be

deemed filed as of the date that he duly submitted it to prison

authorities for forwarding to the clerk of court. We therefore

reverse the magistrate judge's order granting the Ector County

officials' motion to dismiss, and remand for further proceedings

.

I

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

While incarcerated in a federal prison in El Reno, Oklahoma,

Cooper drafted a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (§

1983). On July 11, 1994, a Monday, Cooper signed the complaint

before a notary public and deposited it in the prison's legal mail

system. 3 Prison authorities forwarded Cooper's complaint to the

district court clerk, who received it on July 15, 1994, a Friday.

This case hinges on that date of receipt, as Cooper's cause of4 Cooper's complaint asserted that the Ector County officials

violated his constitutional rights by placing him in solitary

confinement without notice or hearing and in a manner that amounted

to cruel and unusual punishment. The relevant period of solitary

confinement ended on July 14, 1992.

The complaint also asserted constitutional violations arising

from earlier periods of in carceration in the Ector County jail.

The magistrate judge dismissed those claims as clearly time-barred,

and Cooper does not appeal their dismissal.

5 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

6 For a magistrate judge to decline to follow a district

court's opinion may be unusual, but when (1) both parties consent

to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge and (2) the district

court specifically designates the magistrate judge to conduct civil

proceedings, the magistrate judge "may act in the capacity of a

district court judge" and is not bound by prior opinions expressed

by the district judge. S ee McGinnis v. Shalala

, 2 F.3d 548, 551

(5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied

, 114 S. Ct. 1293 (1994); see also 28

U.S.C. § 636(c) (1988 & Supp. V 1993); Neals v. Norwood , 59 F.3d

3 action accrued exactly two years and one da y earlier. 4 The

magistrate judge who heard the case found that a two-year statute

of limitations applied, and recommended dismissing Cooper's claim

as untimely. Cooper objected, arguing that under the Supreme

Court's holding in Houston v. Lack

, 5 his complaint should be

considered filed as of the date he placed it in the prison's mail

system. The district court agreed with Cooper and returned the

case to the original magistrate judge for further proceedings. The

Ector County officials then moved to dismiss on the grounds that

the complaint was tim e-barred. After both parties consented to

have the magistrate judge order the entry of a final judgment

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)--and despite the prior opinion of

the district judge to the contrary--the m agistrate judge granted

the Ector County officials' motion and dismissed the complaint as

untimely. 6 Cooper appealed the magistrate judge's order directly530, 532 (5th Cir. 1995).

7 See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

8 Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. at 268-69.

9 Id. at 270.

10 Houston , 487 U.S. at 271-72; see also Thompson v. Rasberry

, 993 F.2d 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1993) (extending Houston 's mailbox rule

to pro se prisoners' written objections to a magistrate's proposed

findings and recommendations).

4 to this court. 7

II.

ANALYSIS

In Houston v. Lack , a state prisoner drafted a pro se notice

of appeal from the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition. He

deposited the notice into the prison mail system three days before

the thirty-day filing deadline set by F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(a)(1); but

the district court clerk did not receive the notice of appeal until

one day after the expirat ion of the filing period. 8 The Supreme

Court held that the notice of appeal had been filed as of the

moment it was delivered to prison officials. 9

A bright-line "mailbox rule" for pro se prisoners was thereby

established. The Supreme Court recognized that without a mailbox

rule, prisoners acting pro se would be unduly prejudiced in their

attempts to exercise their rights under the law:

Unskilled in law, unaided by counsel, and unable to leave

the prison, [a prisoner's] control over the processing of

his notice necessarily ceases as soon as he hands it over to the only public officials to whom he has access--the

prison authorities--and the only information he will

likely have is the date he delivered the notice to those

prison authorities and the date ultimately stamped on his

notice. 1011 See Houston , 487 U.S. at 275-76.

12 Houston , 487 U.S. at 271; see also id. at 276.

13 See Houston , 487 U.S. at 270-71; Dory , 999 F.2d 682.

5 The Houston Court reasoned that the mailbox rule also pre termits

time-consuming examinations of the circumstances behind any delay

in the delivery of prisoners' documents to the court clerk. 11 The

Court emphasized the inevitable complexity of such examinations, as

"the pro se prisoner has no choice but to entrust the forwarding of

his notice of appeal to prison authorities whom he cannot control

. . . and who may have every reason to delay." 12

The concerns underlying the Houston decision clearly apply to

instant case. Prisoners filing pro se complaints face the same

limitations as prisoners filing pro se notices of appeal : They

cannot visit the courthouse to ensure that their pleadings are

stamped "filed"; and they can neither place their com plaints

personally in the hands of United States postal workers nor phone

the district court to ascertain that the papers have been

delivered. 13 Moreover, by definition they have no attorney to

institute and monitor the process.

Finally, any delay between the submission of a com plaint to

prison authorities and its arrival at the courthouse, like any

delay in the arrival of a notice of appeal, raises difficult issues

of possible neglect or even intentional interference. The

temptation for willful obstru ction recognized in H ouston as to

notices of appeal is even more compelling in the case of

complaints: When prisoners a ppeal

, they have already lost the14 See Houston , 487 U.S. at 271.

1 5 It should be noted tha t Cooper filed his § 1983 complaint

against the Ector County officials while he was incarcerated in an independent, federal prison system. The authorities who received

his complaint therefore had less reason to delay than if they

themselves ha d been named defendants. Nonetheless, this

dis tinction is insufficient to merit the conclusion that the

H ouston rule should not apply to Cooper's case, as it can be

assumed that prison officials generally are less than enthusiastic

about facilitating the lawsuits of prisoners.

16 Garvey , 993 F.2d at 782 (citing Lewis , 947 F.2d at 736).

1 7 Compare F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(a)(1) ("[T]he notice of appeal

required by Rule 3 must filed with the clerk of the district court

within 30 days of the date of entry of the judgment

. . . .") with

F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 5(e) ("The f iling of the papers with the court as

required by these rules shall be made by filing them with the clerk

of the court . . . .").

6 first round. I f prison authorities have an incentive to delay a

filing under those circumstances, 14 then they have an even greater

motivation to thwart the timely filing of new claims the merits of

which have yet to be determined. 15

It is true that the Houston holding was based on an

interpretation of F ED

. R. A P P

. P. 4(a)(1) (Rule 4(a)(1)), whereas

the instant case involves F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 5(e) (Rule 5(e)).

Regardless, the language of both rules is "so similar that an

identical interpretation [is] warranted." 16 Both rules plainly

require that litigation papers be filed with the court clerk, 17 yet

the Supreme Court refused to read the black letter of Rule 4(a)(1)

in a vacuum. Instead, the Court viewed the rule's language in the

broade r context of its dominant purpose and overall equity, and

held that the filing requirement is met when a prisoner delivers a1 8 See Houston

, 487 U.S. at 270. In 1993, after the H ouston

opinion was handed down, F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4 was amended to adopt the

mailbox rule for al l prisoner notices of appeal. Rule 4(c) now

reads, "If an inmate confined in an institution files a notice of

appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of

appeal is timely filed if it is deposited in the institution's

internal mail system on or before the last day for filing." S e e

F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 4(c).

The fact that simi lar changes have not been made to F E D

. R.

C IV

. P. 5(e) is of no moment: Different committees draft changes to

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure; and nei ther the committees nor Congress is

under an obligation to consider and incorporate eve ry possible

implication of Supreme Court rulings.

1 9 See Hamm v. Moore

, 984 F.2d 890, 892 (8th Cir. 1992) (citing

Hostler v. Groves

, 912 F.2d 1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 1990), cert.

denied , 498 U.S. 1120 (1991)).

2 0 As there is no federal statute of limitatio ns for § 1983

actions, the federal courts borrow the foru m state's general

personal injury limitations period. S ee Jack son v. Johnson , 950

F.2d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 1992); Ali v. Higgs

, 892 F.2d 438, 439 (5th

Cir. 1990). The applicable statute of limitations in Texas is two

years. S ee T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE A NN

. § 16.003(a) (Vernon's

1986).

The Ector County officials also a ttempt to distinguish this

case from Houston on the grounds that the failure to file a notice

of appeal in a timely manner raises a jurisdictional barrier to

r eview, whereas the filing of a complaint beyond the limitati ons period rais es a p rocedural roadblock. This court has already

7 pro se notice of appeal to prison authorities. 18 Noting that the

Houston opinion nowhere indicates that it should be limited to

habeas appeals, 19 we join all other circuit courts th at have

considered this issue and extend the Court's conclusion to the

filing of a prisoner's pro se complaint under Rule 5(e)

.

The Ector County officials argue that we should not extend the

Houston analy sis to the filing of complaints, as Rule 4(a)(1)

allows only thirty days for the filing of a notice of appeal,

compared to the two-year period available for t he filing of a §

1983 com plaint. 2 0 We decline to credit this argument for twoextended Houston 's mailbox rule to a purely procedural issue--the

filing of writt en objections to a magistrate's proposed findings

and recommendations. S ee Thompson

, 993 F.2d at 515. Thus, in the

instant case, any dissimilarity between jurisdictional and

procedural issues amounts to a "distinction without a difference."

21 F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 3(c).

22 F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 8(a).

23 F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 8(e)(2).

24 F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 8(a)(3).

25 F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 8(e)(1).

2 6 See, e.g.

, Baton Rouge Bldg. & Const. v. Jacobs Constructors

, 804 F.2d 879, 881 (5th Cir. 1986).

8 reasons. First, the difference in filing periods fairly reflects

the relative degrees of difficulty of the tasks involved. A notice

o f appeal need only list the name of the appellant, the order or

jud gment appealed from, and the name of the court to which the

appeal is taken. 21 The notice typically consists of but one fairly

formulaic, easily adaptable paragraph.

A complaint, by contrast, must state the basis for the

jurisdiction of the trial court, a description of a claim or claims

upon which relief can be granted, and a demand for judgment for

relief sought. 2 2 Frequently complaints contain multiple claims, 2 3

and relief "in the alternative or of several different types may be

demanded." 24 Thus, even though technical forms of pleadings are no

longer required, 25 and pleadings--particularly pro se pleadings--are

generally construed liberally, 26 a complaint requires considerably

more background research and individual attention than does a2 7 Cooper's complaint, for example, comprises more than eighteen

handwritten pages.

2 8 See, e.g.

, Schultea v. Wood

, 47 F.3d 1427 (5th Cir. 1995) (en

banc) (interpreting Elliott v. Perez

, 751 F. 2d 1472 (5th Cir.

1985))

.

29 Lewis , 947 F.2d at 735.

9 notice of appeal. 27 Moreover, a great majority of prisoner pro se

filings consist of § 1983 complaints, which in almost every

instance must comply with the heightened pleading standard of

specificity. 28

The Ector County officials' argument also fails because it is

blind to the underlying policy of the Houston opinion:

[ Houston ] simply provides that a statute of limitations

has the same practical effect on every pro se prisoner

litigant it governs. The length of the time restriction

involved is irrelevant. Limitations periods themselves

make no distinction bet ween those who file early and

those who file late. The Houston rule merely serves to

create functionally equivalent time bars and provide

equal access to the courts for pro se prisoner

litigants. 29

We are satisfied that pro se prisoner litigants are at least

as needful of a level playing field when filing complaints as are

such litigants when filing notices of appeal. Accordingly, we

reverse the magistrate judge's order dismissing Cooper's complaint

as untimely, and remand for further proceedings.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.