Opinion ID: 2538686
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Federal Mailbox Ride

Text: Carlstad and McLean ask us to adopt a mailbox rule similar to that created by the United States Supreme Court in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). In Houston, after the federal district court dismissed a pro se prisoner's writ for habeas corpus, the prisoner delivered a notice of appeal for mailing to the district court to prison officials prior to the statutory deadline for such appeals. Id. at 268, 108 S.Ct. 2379. However, the district court stamped the notice filed one day after the statutory deadline and dismissed his appeal as untimely. Id. at 268-69, 108 S.Ct. 2379. The United States Supreme Court interpreted the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and determined that a notice of appeal would be considered filed at the moment a pro se prisoner delivers it to prison officials. Id. at 268, 108 S.Ct. 2379. The Court determined that the applicable statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2107, [1] did not define when a notice of appeal had been filed, nor did it indicate with whom it must be filed. Houston, 487 U.S. at 272, 108 S.Ct. 2379. The Court then turned to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, which required filing with the clerk of the court within 30 days. [2] The Court noted that while it was undisputed that the notice had to be delivered to the clerk of the district court, the question remained as to how to determine at what moment a filing had occurred. Houston, 487 U.S. at 272-73, 108 S.Ct. 2379. The Court, while acknowledging the general rule that the court clerk's receipt of the pleadings was usually considered the moment of filing, found that the general rule should not apply to pro se prisoners. Id. at 275, 108 S.Ct. 2379. Whereas a civil litigant may choose to risk tardiness by mailing a notice of appeal, a pro se prisoner's only option for filing papers with a court is by handing them over to prison officials to mail. Id. The Court noted that a pro se prisoner has no choice but to entrust the forwarding of his notice of appeal to prison authorities whom he cannot control or supervise and who may have every incentive to delay. Id. at 271, 108 S.Ct. 2379. The Court recognized that, although the mailbox rule had been rejected in other contexts because it would increase disputes and uncertainty over when a filing occurred, pro se prisoners could avoid such disputes because prison officials had welldeveloped procedures for recording the date and time at which they received papers for mailing. Id. at 275, 108 S.Ct. 2379. In Houston, the Court adopted the mailbox rule for pro se prisoners. [3]