Court Opinion

ID: 9948177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 17:01:50.97242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:29:17.905852
License: Public Domain

Appellate Case: 23-3137    Document: 010111010716   Date Filed: 03/06/2024   Page: 1
                                                                            FILED
                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                        Tenth Circuit
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                       March 6, 2024
                            FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
                          _________________________________         Christopher M. Wolpert
                                                                        Clerk of Court
  DONNELL BARROW,

           Petitioner - Appellant,

  v.                                                    No. 23-3137
                                               (D.C. No. 5:23-CV-03026-JWL)
  DONALD HUDSON,                                          (D. Kan.)
  Warden, USP-Leavenworth,

           Respondent - Appellee.
                        _________________________________

                             ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
                          _________________________________

 Before BACHARACH, McHUGH, and FEDERICO, Circuit Judges.
                _________________________________

       Donnell Barrow, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the

 denial of his petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, as well as his

 motion for reconsideration. Because Barrow failed to satisfy the prison

 mailbox rule, we dismiss his untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

       * 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
Appellate Case: 23-3137   Document: 010111010716   Date Filed: 03/06/2024   Page: 2

                                       I.

       Barrow filed a petition for habeas corpus under § 2241, seeking credit

 towards his sentence that he claims he earned under the First Step Act of

 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-391, 132 Stat. 5194. In May 2023, the district court

 deemed Barrow’s petition to be without merit and denied it. Barrow timely

 filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied on May

 24, 2023. Accordingly, Barrow was required to file his notice of appeal on or

 before July 24, 2023. See 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b); Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B).

       Although Barrow’s notice of appeal is dated July 24, 2023, and

 includes a handwritten note dated July 20, 2023, the envelope containing

 these filings is postmarked July 25, 2023. Likewise, the district court did

 not receive Barrow’s notice of appeal until July 28, 2023. As a result, this

 court issued a jurisdictional show cause order, asking Barrow to address

 the timeliness of his appeal.

       In response, Barrow filed a “Declaration,” in which he “swear[s] under

 the penalty of purgery [sic]” that he “submitted his legal mail” on July 24,

 2023. Aplt. Dec. at 1. Barrow further states:

       Here at FCI Englewood, legal mail goes out in the mornings[.]
       FCI Englewood does not let inmates drop off there [sic] legal
       mail until 10:30 am to 11:30 am[.] [M]ail has already left for
       that day in the early mornings and cannot be sent out until the
       next day[.] [S]o help me God that this is the truth and nothing
       but the truth.

                                        2
Appellate Case: 23-3137   Document: 010111010716   Date Filed: 03/06/2024   Page: 3

 Id.

                                       II.

       “The filing of a timely notice of appeal is an absolute prerequisite to

 our jurisdiction.” United States v. Ceballos-Martinez, 387 F.3d 1140, 1143

 (10th Cir. 2004) (quoting Parker v. Bd. of Pub. Utils., 77 F.3d 1289, 1290

 (10th Cir. 1996)). Indeed, this court has “no authority to create equitable

 exceptions to jurisdictional requirements” in a civil case. Bowles v. Russell,

 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007); see also Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. of Ill., 434

 U.S. 257, 269 (1978) (holding that federal habeas corpus cases are civil

 rather than criminal proceedings). A litigant’s pro se status does not affect

 this prerequisite, see Mayfield v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 647 F.2d 1053, 1054–

 55 (10th Cir. 1981) (dismissing pro se appeal filed three days late), and

 Barrow bears the burden of establishing our subject matter jurisdiction.

 Ceballos-Martinez, 387 F.3d at 1143.

       Because Barrow is in federal custody, he may establish that his appeal

 is timely if he can show he complied with the prison mailbox rule. See Price

 v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1163–64 (10th Cir. 2005) (A pro se prisoner’s

 notice of appeal “will be considered timely if [it is] given to prison officials

 for mailing prior to the filing deadline, regardless of when the court itself

 receives the documents.”). To benefit from the rule, a prisoner must use the

 institution’s legal mail system, deposit the notice on or before the last day

                                        3
Appellate Case: 23-3137   Document: 010111010716   Date Filed: 03/06/2024   Page: 4

 for filing, and include “a declaration in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 . .

 . setting out the date of deposit and stating that first-class postage is being

 prepaid.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)(A)(i).

       Though Barrow set out the date of deposit, he failed to state that first-

 class postage had been prepaid. This omission is fatal. See, e.g., Ceballos-

 Martinez, 387 F.3d at 1145 (holding that the prisoner’s failure to affirm that

 he prepaid first-class postage meant that his filing did not satisfy the prison

 mailbox rule’s requirements); Hailey v. Ray, 312 F. App’x 113, 115–16 (10th

 Cir. 2009) (holding that because the prisoner failed to aver that first-class

 postage was prepaid, he failed to comply with the prison mailbox rule);

 Gaines v. United States Marshals Serv., 291 F. App’x 134, 136 (10th Cir.

 2008) (describing the requirement regarding first-class postage to be

 “rigidly enforced”).1 Because Barrow’s “Declaration” is insufficient to satisfy

 the prison mailbox rule, his appeal is untimely and this court is deprived of

 jurisdiction.

                                       III.

       We are without jurisdiction to consider Barrow’s untimely appeal

 because Barrow failed to satisfy the strict requirements of the prison

       1 Because Barrow failed to state first-class postage had been prepaid,

 we need not decide whether his “Declaration” met the requirements of
 § 1746. See United States v. Payne, No. 20-5021, 2020 WL 4805472, at *2
 n.4 (10th Cir. May 13, 2020).
                                        4
Appellate Case: 23-3137   Document: 010111010716   Date Filed: 03/06/2024   Page: 5

 mailbox rule when he filed his notice of appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is

 DISMISSED. Barrow’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED.

                                        Entered for the Court

                                        Richard E.N. Federico
                                        Circuit Judge

                                        5