FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAY 27, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 12 28 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 5 :0 8- cv -0 00 04 -WT M-J EG ELMON MCCAR ROLL ELMORE, JR., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us ASSISTANT WARDEN PEGGY A NN COOPER, Co ffee Co rrec ti on al Faci li ty, in di vi du al ly andin he r of fic ia l capa ci ty, CORREC TIONS CORPORATION OF AMERI CA, a Ten ne ss ee Co rp or at io n, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma y 27 , 20 11 ) Befo re CARNES, M ARTIN, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Elm on Elm or e, Jr . app eal s t he de ni al of h is m ot io n t o re op enhi s t im e to

ap pe al un de r Fed eral Ru le of Ap pe ll at e Pro cedur e 4 (a)( 6)
. I. Elm or e, a s ta te pri so ne r, fil eda co m pl ai ntinfed eral co urt i n e arl y 20 08 ag ai ns t p ris on off

ic ia ls un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 3, cl ai m in g t ha t h e h adno t b een pr ov id edwith s uf

fic ie ntfree po st ag e fro m

th e p ris on on at l eas t t wo o ccas io ns . The di st ric t co urt en te redanord er g ran ti ng su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t El m or e o n Sep te m be r 23 , 20 09 . Thatsame day th e co urt en te redfin al jud gm en t d is m is si ng Elm or e’s cas e. A few da y s l at er Elm or e fi le d ati m el y m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t. OnNov em

be r 6, 2 00 9, t he di st ric t co urt en te redanord er d en y in g Elm or e’s m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t, b utap pa ren tl y di d n otsen d Elm or e n ot ic e o f th atord er. InJan uary

20 10 Elm or e reque st edanup da te on th e st atus of h is m ot io n t o al te r or am en d. OnJan ua ry

13 , 20 10 , th e d is tri ctco urt re sp on de d a ndin fo rm ed Elm or e th athi s m ot io n h adbe ende ni edm or e th antwo m on th s earli er i n t he Nov em be r 6 o rd er. Elm or e fi le d am ot io n fo r le av e to fil e an ou t o f ti m e n ot ic e o f ap pe al un de r Ru le 4(a )(6 ) da te d J an ua ry 13 , 20 10 , reque st in g tha t t he di stric t co urt
reo pe n h is ti m e to ap pe al du e to hi s l ackof n ot ic e o f th e Nov em be r 6 o rd er.

2Alo ng with t ha t m ot io n El m or e fi le d apro po se d n ot ic e o f ap pe al , whi ch

in di cat edth atElm or e d es ire d t o app eal fro m th e fi na l ju dg m en t an d, co ns tru in g th e p ro se n ot ic e li be ral ly, th e o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t ha t jud gm en t. The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d h is m ot io n, h ol di ng th atitco ul d “ fin d n o

1 in te rp ret at io n o f [Ru le ] 4( a)(6 ) th atwou ldall ow a d is tri ctco urt t o re op enth e ti m e to fil e a n ot ic e o f ap pe al ba se d o n afai lu re t o re cei ve no ti ce tha t a [ m ot io n t o a lt er
oram en d the jud gm en t] was d en ie d.” Elm or e m ov edth e co urt t o re co ns id er, whi chth e d is tri ctco urt al so de ni ed . Elm or e th enfil edth is ap pe al , ess en ti al ly
co nt en di ng th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin it s i nt erp ret at io n o f Ru le 4(a )(6 ). II. Alt ho ug h we r ev ie w a di st ric t co urt’s d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o re op enth e ti m e to ap pe al un de r Ru le 4(a )(6 ) on ly for an ab us e o f di sc ret io n, s ee M cDan ie l v
. Mo or e, 29 2 F .3d13 04 , 13 05 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ), we rev ie w de n ov o a“ di st ric t

We must construe Elmore’s pr o se propose d notice of a ppeal liber ally . See B ellizi a v. 1 Fla. D ep’t of Corr ., 614 F.3d 1326, 1329 ( 11th Cir. 2010) (“We construe pro se f ilings . . . liberally .”); KHOutdoor, L L C v. Cit y of Trussville, 465 F .3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006) (“ In this circuit, it is well settled that an appea l is not l ost if a mistake is made in designatingthe judgme nt appea led from whe re it is clea r that the ove rridingintent was ef fec tively to appea l.”). Elmore’s pr oposed notice e x plicitly ref ere nced the order

denying his motion to alter or a mend the final judg ment in addition to refer encingthe final judgment itself, and thus evince d an intent to appea l from both the final judgment and the or der de nying E lmore’s motion to alter or a mend.
3co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f fed eral pro cedur al rul es ,” Venc orHos ps ., Inc . v. St an da rd

Life & Acci de ntIns . Co., 2 79 F.3d13 06 , 13 08 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). If a p art y fai ls to fil e a n ot ic e o f ap pe al withi n t he 30 -d ay pe rio d re qu ire d b y Ru le 4(a )(1 ), Ru le 4(a )(6 ) pr ov id es th at : The di stric t co urt m ay

reo pe n t he ti m e to fil e an ap pe al fora pe rio d o f 14 da y s af

te r th e d at e whe n i ts ord er t o re op enis en te red , bu t o nl y if al l t he fol lo win g c on di ti on s ar e sa ti sf ie d: (A) th e co urt fi nd s t ha t the m ov in g p art y di d n otrece iv e n ot ic e . . . of th e en try of the jud gm en t o r or de r so ug htto be ap pe al edwithi n 2 1 da y s af te r en try; (B) t he m ot io n i s fi le d wi th in 18 0 d ay s af te r th e jud gm en t o r or de r is en te redor wi th in 14 da y s af te r th e m ov in g p art y

rece iv es no ti ce . . . of th e en try, whic he ve r is earl ie r; a nd (C) t he co urt fi nd s tha t n o p arty wou ldbe pre

jud ic ed
. Fed . R App . P. 4(a )(6 ). The di stric t co urt d en ie d El m or e’s m ot io ns to reo pe n h is ti m e to ap pe al wit ho utreac hi ng th e m eri ts of h is m ot io n b ecau se itin te rp ret edRu le 4(a )(6 ) no t t o al lo w a co urt t o re op enanord er d en y in g am ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t. Tha t i nt erp ret at io n was in co rrec t. The lan gu ag e o f Ru le 4(a )(6 ) do es no t re st ric t it s ap pl ic at io n t o the en try of a fi na l ju dg m en t. FedR. App . P. 4(a )(6 ) (“ The di st ric t co urt m ay

reo pe n t he ti m e to fil e anap pe al
. . . bu t o nl y if . . . th e co urt fin ds th atth e m ov in g p arty di d n otrece iv e n ot ic e . . . of the en try of the jud gm en t

4orord er s ou gh t t o b e ap pe al edwithi n 2 1 d ay s af te r en try [and ] th e m ot io n i s fi le d wit hi n 1 80 da y s af

te r th e jud gm en t o r or de r is en te red
. . . .” (em ph as is ad de d) ). Bec au se Elm or e al le ge d t ha t h e d idno t re cei ve th e o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n t o al te r or am en d wi th in 21 da y s o f it s en try andth e m ot io n t o re op enwas fi le d wit hi n 1 80 da y s af

te r th atord er was en te red , th e d is tri ctco urt s ho ul d h av e
co ns id eredth e m eri ts of h is m ot io n t o re op enhi s t im e to ap pe al un de r Ru le 4( a)(6 ). Acco rd in gl y , we vac at e an d re m an d t o a ll ow the di stric t co urt t o c on si de r th e m eri ts of El m or e’s m ot io n t o re op enhi s t im e to ap pe al . W e ex pr es s n o op in io n o n wh ethe r Elm or e h as sat is fie d t he requi rem en ts of Rul e 4 (a)( 6) th at
m us t b e m etin ord er t o g iv e th e d is tri ctco urt d is cret io n t o re op enth e ti m e to ap pe al fro m

th e o rd er d en y in g h is m ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t ha t ju dg m en t. Add it io na ll y , we exp res s n o o pi ni on on whet he r an y fai lu re t o re cei ve no ti ce o f an
or de r de nyin g am ot io n t o a lt er o r am en d t he jud gm en t g iv es th e d is tri ctco urt di sc ret io n u nd er Ru le 4(a )(6 ) to all ow El m or e to reo pe n t he ti m e to ap pe al fro m th e fi na l ju dg m en t. VACATED AND REMANDED.

5