Logan v. Central Freight Lines, 88-5571
| Decision Date | 14 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-5571,88-5571 |
| Citation | 858 F.2d 993 |
| Parties | Chester LOGAN d/b/a A H & A Distributing a/k/a Hussien Ali, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Chester Logan, Texarkana, Tex., pro se.
Benjamin N. Hamilton, Waco, Tex., for Cent. Freight, Callan & Rodriguez.
Steven W. Arronge, City Atty.'s Office, San Antonio, Tex., for Perales & Ellis.
Ricardo J. Navarro, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for Cade & Sifuentes.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before GEE, RUBIN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Appellees John Cade and Ben Sifuentes have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground that appellant's notice of appeal was untimely. Judgment was signed on June 6, 1988, and entered on June 7, 1988; the notice of appeal, hence, was due to be filed by the thirtieth day from June 7, 1988, which was July 7, 1988. See United States v. Doyle, 854 F.2d 771, 772 (1988). However, the clerk did not receive the notice until July 12, 1988. The notice states, "RESPECTFULLY submitted this 7th day of July 1988, on which date a copy hereof was mailed to counsel of record for the defendants."
The deadline for filing notice of appeal is jurisdictional and is to be strictly construed, see United States v. Doyle, and as to most appellants the failure to put the notice into the hands of the clerk by the thirtieth day would be fatal. Here, however, the appellant is a pro se prisoner. Recently, the Supreme Court held that a prisoner's notice of appeal in a civil case is deemed timely filed if it is delivered to prison authorities, for forwarding to the district court, on or before the thirtieth day following entry of judgment. Houston v. Lack, --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
Here, the appellant should be given the opportunity to make the requisite showing. For example, he can make use of the prison mail logs to prove that he tendered the notice of appeal, for mailing, on or before the deadline. See Thompson v. Montgomery, 853 F.2d 287 (5th Cir.1988).
We REMAND this matter to the district court to make the factual findings from which we can determine whether, under Houston v. Lack, the notice of appeal should be deemed timely. Upon making these findings, the district court shall return the case to this court for further proceedings or dismissal, as may be appropriate.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Rasberry
...his contention, Thompson cites Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988) and Logan v. Central Freight Lines, 858 F.2d 993 (5th Cir.1988) (per curiam) for the proposition that a pro se prisoner plaintiff's written objections to a magistrate's report and recommenda......
-
United States v. Duran
...case to allow appellant the opportunity to prove that his objections were filed in a timely manner); Logan v. Cent. Freight Lines , 858 F.2d 993, 994 (5th Cir. 1988) (remanding case to allow appellant the opportunity to make the requisite showing regarding the timeliness of his notice of ap......
-
U.S. v. Phipps, 87-5066
...for a determination as to when the notice of appeal was delivered to prison officials for forwarding. See Logan v. Central Freight Lines, 858 F.2d 993, 994 (5th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (case remanded to district court to allow pro se prisoner to show that notice of appeal timely filed); Thom......
-
Mayer v. State, CA-CV
...is to remand to the trial court to make this determination. Miller v. Sumner, 872 F.2d 287, 288 (9th Cir.1989); Logan v. Central Freight Lines, 858 F.2d 993, 994 (5th Cir.1988); Thompson v. Montgomery, 853 F.2d 287, 288 (5th While this procedure may substantially delay review of prisoner pe......