Document: 487 U.S. 266 108 S.Ct. 2379 101 L.Ed.2d 245 Prentiss HOUSTON, Petitionerv.Larry LACK, Warden. No. 87-5428. Argued April 27, 1988. Decided June 24, Syllabus While incarcerated in a Tennessee prison, petitioner drafted pro se notice of appeal from the Federal District Court's judgment dismissing his habeas corpus petition, and, 27 days after judgment, deposited with prison authorities for mailing to Court. The date deposit was recorded prison's outgoing mail log. Because lacked necessary funds, refused requests certify proof that it had been on day question and send air mail. Although record contains no evidence when actually mailed or Court received it, court stamped "filed" 31 judgment—that is, one expiration 30-day filing period taking an under Rule Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1). For this reason, Appeals dismissed as jurisdictionally out time. Held: Under 4(a)(1), prisoners' notices are at moment delivery forwarding district court. Cf. Fallen v. United States, 378 139, 84 1689, 12 760 (Stewart, J., concurring). Unskilled law, unaided by counsel, unable leave prisoner's control over processing necessarily ceases soon he hands only public officials whom has access—the authorities—and information will likely have is delivered those ultimately upon it. deadline set forth 28 U.S.C. § 2107, which applies civil actions including proceedings, does not preclude relief petitioner, since statute define nor any way suggests that, unique circumstances prisoner, would be inappropriate conclude such occurs officials. Such conclusion negated fact Rules 3(a) 4(a)(1) specify should "filed clerk Court," relevant timing, destination, neither sets criteria determining occurred. general rule receipt constitutes filing, although appropriate most appeals, apply prisoner context. Nothing either compels must all cases, fact, number federal courts recognized exceptions principle. Moreover, rationale appellant delays clerk's notice—a here loses notice: forwarding. bright-line recognizing also decrease disputes uncertainty occurred, keep detailed logs recording time they receive papers can readily dispute contrary assertions. Relying receipt, contrast, raise difficult questions whether authorities, Postal Service, blame delay. Pp. 269-276. 819 F.2d 289 (CA 6 1987) reversed. BRENNAN, opinion Court, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, JJ., joined. SCALIA, filed dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., O'CONNOR KENNEDY, joined, post, p. 277. Penny J. White, Johnson City, Tenn., petitioner. Jerry L. Smith, Nashville, respondent. Justice BRENNAN 1 Pro prisoners file appeals delivering them we decide case considered some later point 2 * Incarcerated Houston petition 2254 writ Tennessee. That declined appoint counsel entered January 7, 1986. Still acting se, February 3, 1986 (27 judgment), This log Petitioner states without contradiction requested sent mail, but these because funds pay fees charged services. contain envelope mailed, therefore postmark other letter. log, however, addressing may mistakenly used post office box Supreme rather than (both Jackson, Tennessee, approximately 81 miles prison). there direct notice, Clerk 8:30 a.m. 1986, entered—that established 3 Neither respondent suggested might untimely. Rather, issued certificate probable cause 18, noting presented "question first impression" jurisdiction. App. 22. On March 5, States Sixth Circuit circulated briefing schedule parties. 21, 13 expired request extension 4(a)(5), discovered problem concerning petitioner's alerted parties entering order requiring show why want Eventually appointed argue May 22, 1987, We granted certiorari, 484 1025, 747, 98 (1988), now reverse. II 4 last addressed timely (1964). involved what then 37(a) Criminal (the substance appears 4(b)), criminal defendant seeking within 10 entry being appealed.1 Two before 10-day deadline, Fallen, while incarcerated, until four deadline. noted "the jurisdictional prerequisite hearing appeal," U.S., 142, S.Ct., 1691-1692, concluded could read literally bar Fallen's because, case, "had done reasonably expected get letter its destination required days." Id., 144, 1692-1693. Stewart, joined Justices Clark, Harlan, concurred ground "for purposes 37(a)(2), aid files time, if, provided Rule, delivers In words, jailer effect meaning 37." Ibid. 5 analysis concurring thus requisite when, three situation unique. cannot take steps litigants monitor their ensure receives stamps Unlike litigants, personally travel courthouse see establish notice. Other choose entrust vagaries process stamping incoming papers, forced do so situation. And if use least place directly into Service (or private express carrier); follow progress calling determine stamped, knowing goes awry deliver monitoring provide demonstrate excusable neglect precautions; nor, definition, lawyers who precautions them. Worse, choice supervise every incentive No matter how far advance never sure delay suspects attributable unlikely means proving confinement prevents him sufficiently distinguish part slow service failure stamp received. Respondent stresses action, Browder Director, Dept. Corrections Illinois, 434 257, 265, n. 9, 269, 556, 561, 563, 54 521 (1978), timing thus, unlike issue subject statutory 2107. But, here, 2107 merely provides: 7 "[N]o shall bring decree suit proceeding nature review unless filed, thirty decree." 8 designate person nothing 9 little more specific. "An permitted law right taken allowed 4." "In 30 appealed from. . ." 11 "with court." There directed court—delivery theory constitute "filing" were destination: juncture processing. dispositive point, See 1692-1693 concurring) (concluding "filing court" court). Indeed, our own recognize document 28.2 (providing deemed Court). concedes suffices meet requirement even though yet formally Parissi Telechron, Inc., 349 46, 47, 75 577, 99 L.Ed. 867 (1955); also, e.g., Deloney Estelle, 661 1061, 1062-1063 (CA5 1981); Aldabe Aldabe, 616 1089, 1091 (CA9 1980); Solly, 545 874, 876 (CA3 1976). But concluding ordinary between formal See, Deloney, supra, 1063; 1091; 876. different since, discussed above, lack extends much further typical litigant: authorities' freedom bars personally. True, large body lower authority rejected argument placed court—this required.2 Haney Mizell Memorial Hospital, 744 1467, 1472 (CA11 1984); re LBL Sports Center, 684 410, 413 (CA6 1982); Sanchez Board Regents Texas Southern University, 625 521, 522 Bad Bubba Racing Products, 609 815, 816 Allen Schnuckle, 253 195, 197 1958). Pigge, 539 369 (CA4 1976) (adopting mailbox rule). To extent cases state disturb persuaded here. First, filing. have, held Judge, Halfen 324 52, (CA10 1963), former address Clerk, Lundy Union Carbide Corp., 695 394, 395, 1982), 4(a) making 10(a)(1) adopted deems mailing. generally Placeway Construction Corp. 713 726 Fed.1983). 14 Second, policy grounds suggest instead particular As lose contact clerk. Thus, whereas justified litigant chooses assumes risk untimely see, Bubba, 816, hand Further, rejection contexts based concerns increase occurred put about party. Lombardo, 241 73, 78, 36 508, 510, 60 897 (1916). These administrative lead opposite anonymously drop mailbox—he well-developed procedures assertions paper date. reference straightforward inquiry, turn rule, uncertain one. raises resolve constituted earlier.3 made particularly forward promptly. everyone concedes, act promptly bind relying context dilatory. party access needed questions—one vices meant avoid—and issues hard come confined cell, usually guess 15 jurisdiction clerk.4 accordingly 16 Reversed. THE CHIEF JUSTICE, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY join, dissenting. 17 Today's decision obliterates line textual construction enactment. It realm normal judicial creativity (though my view wrong) interpret phrase clerk" mean "mailed clerk," given bearing obligation clerk." interpreting "delivered or, you your warden" acceptable infinite variants, as: country, consul"; soldier active duty war zone, commanding officer"; hostage foreign Like examples, makes good deal sense. I dissent promulgated through congressionally prescribed procedures. 18 requires us construe provision two provisions Procedure. statutory, juridsictional proceeding. 19 suit, decree" (emphasis added). 20 itself fill details. 21 4" 22 supplemented 23 24 clear, then, effective give period. 25 observes many things, Ante, slip op., 272-274. unquestionable. practice construing pick single meaning, impart one, another, judicially perceived equities individual require. Some terms, "restraint trade," Business Electronics Sharp 485 717, 731-733, 1515, ---- - ----, 808 invite case; establishing supposed rely sort. proviso Rules, unexpectedly invokes support position. reads: "To specified except mailbox, first-class postage prepaid, properly notarized statement member Bar setting details mailing, stating knowledge took time." (Emphasis added.) 26 Since "received Clerk" must, understood unitary course normally actual felt constrained exception suffice. less possible) present create interpretation reasoning Post Office agent addressee, Household Fire & Carriage Accident Ins. Co. Grant, Ex.D. 216 (1879) ("[P]ost [is] both parties"), hence theoretically possible consider by" considerations militating favor well enough satisfied affidavit Bar, etc. If need uniform apparent respect deadlines, indeed court-created rules amended judges' discretion, very issue. context, allowing meanings allows expand contract scope competence. envisioned plain (if citation needed) 26(b) Procedure, specifically excepts courts' broad equitable power "suspend requirements case," Fed.Rule App.Proc. 2, "enlarge appeal." When delayed, 90 "reported Congress Chief Justice," 2072, wished legislate changes Surely imagined remote English warden prison"—or whatever else future fit today's announced "rationale delays," ante, 273. seeks ways, same abandoning decision, purporting "not [to] disturb" received, "[t]o rule." 274. (1955) (holding satisfies 2107); 76, 509, (1916) ("A proper official filed"); Robinson, 640 737, 738 Ramsey, 612 1220, 1223 Ward Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 265 75, 80 1959), rev'd grounds, 362 396, 789, 820 (1960); seems me undisturbed "to [they] rule" profoundly. various adopted—even "addressed warden"—depending equity requires. often agree anything sometimes hold Thus wasteful litigation appellate multiplied. 29 Houston's legal warrant creating special benefit appellants, join reversing basis. advanced several additional arguments supporting reversal did reach. 276—277, 4. them, having so, find none merit. asserts untimeliness excused "did circumstances," 1692-1693, fails tolling deadlines Fallen. erected jurisdictional, waive case. explicit issue, "just determination" achieved. 1691-1692. 32 maintains lulled thinking issuance schedule, move grace period, 4(a)(5). This, suggests, "unique circumstance" sort Harris Truck Lines, Inc. Cherry Meat Packers, 371 215, 217, 83 283, 285, 261 (1962); Thompson INS, 375 384, 387, 397, 398-399, 404 (1964); Wolfsohn Hankin, 376 203, 699, 636 doctrine permits late appeal. Our effectively repudiate Lines approach, affirming "mandatory jurisdictional." Griggs Provident Consumer Discount 459 56, 58, 61, 103 400, 402, 403, 74 225 (1982); (1978). observed Locke, 471 84, 100-101, 105 1785, 1796, 85 64 (1985): 33 "Filing like statutes limitations, operate harshly arbitrarily individuals fall just side concept content, enforced. 'Any rigid standard encouraging lax attitude toward dates,' Boyle, 469 [241,] 249 [105 687, 691-692, 622] [ (1985) ]. A complied with, substantially otherwise, day." 34 Finally, treated motion require obtain extension, text precludes treating motion. revised, explicitly states: "The court, showing cause, extend 4(a)" 35 Advisory Committee's Notes 4(a)(5) explain: "Under implication prior initial run, basis informal application. amendment application motion, ex parte. After compliance F.R.C.P. local U.S.C.App., 469. 37 below treat 38 39 Twenty-four years ago said Thompson: 40 "Rules procedure orderly system justice. Their efficacy, depends willingness enforce according terms. Changes whose inflexibility turned work hardship effected amendment, ad hoc relaxations cases. dispensations long run produce mischievous results, undermining certainty causing confusion among bar." 390, S.Ct, 400. 41 correct, applicable supports today fully adopt Rules. Doing fashion evades reject legislation become effective, destroys important characteristic requirements, understand short-circuit immediate due Clerk. imprudent close hand. 42 reasons stated, respectfully dissent. At 37(a), 1956 1962, provided: "(1) Notice Appeal. An duplicate. "(2) Time Taking citing (1955), Parissi, though, sufficient, necessary, Lombardo involve imposed statute. efforts counsel. example, clear alleges slower advertised receipt. connection latter allegation, notes simply reflect method wherein court's collected start following working day. Piper Aircraft Distribution System Antitrust Litigation, 551 213, 216, (CA8 1977) (leaving open prove earlier it); Da'Ville Wise, 470 1364, 1365, 1973) (refusing practices created strong possibility received). holding, reach arguments: could" late; circumstances" (1962),

Category: 0