Court Opinion

ID: 9372180
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-18 21:00:19.730302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:33.530788
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-6598      Doc: 17        Filed: 02/17/2023   Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                              UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                  FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-6598

        PRIEST MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        HAROLD W. CLARKE; A. DAVIDE ROBINSON; MARK E. PEARSON; MARK
        E. ENGELKE; CHAPLAIN HOLLENBAUGH; CYNTHIA PUTNEY; LOUISE G.
        GOODE,

                            Defendants – Appellees,

                     and

        D. Y. KINSLEY,

                            Defendant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00311-MHL-EWH)

        Submitted: November 4, 2022                               Decided: February 17, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6598      Doc: 17         Filed: 02/17/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-6598       Doc: 17         Filed: 02/17/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

        relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The order was entered on March 9, 2021, and Sirleaf

        had 30 days to file his notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The district court

        received Sirleaf’s notice of appeal after the expiration of the appeal period. Because Sirleaf

        was incarcerated at the time of the appeal, the notice was considered filed as of the date it

        was delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1);

        Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Sirleaf stated he delivered his notice of appeal

        to prison officials for mailing on April 14, 2021, which would make the notice untimely.

        However, Sirleaf also stated he did not receive the court’s order until April 13, 2021.

               Accordingly, we remand this case for the limited purpose of allowing the district

        court to determine whether Sirleaf’s notice of appeal should be construed as a motion for

        an extension or reopening of the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6), and if

        so, whether such an extension should be granted. The record, as supplemented, will then

        be returned to this court for further consideration.

                                                                                       REMANDED

                                                      3