Sudduth v. Arizona Atty. Gen., 90-15926
| Decision Date | 10 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-15926,90-15926 |
| Citation | 921 F.2d 206 |
| Parties | David SUDDUTH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL; William Gasper, Warden, Respondents-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before TANG and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
The district court order denying appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was entered on the docket on May 11, 1990. Appellant's notice of appeal from that order was dated June 8, 1990, but was not filed until June 12, 1990. Thus, the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of the entry of the judgment, as required under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a).
Because appellant is a pro se prisoner, however, his notice of appeal is deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2382, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Ordinarily, we will remand to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling that court to determine when the prisoner delivered the notice of appeal to prison authorities. See Miller v. Sumner, 872 F.2d 287 (9th Cir.1989); Miller v. Sumner, 921 F.2d 202 (9th Cir.1990).
However, under the facts of this case, such a remand is unnecessary. Because appellant's notice of appeal was filed in the district court on the 31st day after entry of the order dismissing his petition, it must have been delivered to prison officials within 30 days. Otherwise, the notice of appeal could not have reached the district court in time to be filed on the 31st day. We decline to remand this case to the district court to require it to repeat this rudimentary calculation. Accordingly, we deem appellant's notice of appeal to be timely. We further note that remands pursuant to Miller could be greatly reduced if prisons implemented a system whereby a prisoner's notice of appeal is stamped with the date it is received by prison authorities.
Appellant's motion "for judgment by default" is denied. Because there is no appearance by appellees, this case is deemed ready to calendar.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Woodford
...December 31. Thus, the notice of appeal was timely filed, and we have jurisdiction to consider the merits. See Sudduth v. Ariz. Attorney Gen., 921 F.2d 206, 207 (9th Cir.1990) (published order) (declining to remand to the district court for a determination of B. Santobello Claim Because Pet......
-
Nigro v. Sullivan
...v. Ricketts, 950 F.2d 1464 (9th Cir.1991); United States v. Prairie Pharmacy, Inc., 921 F.2d 211 (9th Cir.1990); Sudduth v. Arizona Att'y General, 921 F.2d 206 (9th Cir.1990); Miller v. Sumner, 921 F.2d 202 (9th Cir.1990); Hostler v. Groves, 912 F.2d 1158 (9th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U......
- U.S. v. Harvey, 91-30320
-
Brown v. Burns
...§ 484.379. Although Brown's notice of appeal arrived at district court a day late, we deem it timely. See Sudduth v. Arizona Attorney General, 921 F.2d 206 (9th Cir.1990). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and we We review de novo the district court's decision to deny Brown'......