Andre Jacobs v. Superintendent Albion SCI
666 F. App'x 111
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Andre Jacobs, a pro se prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the Western District of Pennsylvania; the district court dismissed the petition by order entered June 24, 2015.
- Jacobs filed a notice of appeal on October 1, 2015 (beyond the 60-day Rule 4(a)(1)(B) limit), and submitted an "Affidavit of Timeliness" claiming he did not receive the dismissal order until September 28, 2015 due to alleged prison mail interference.
- This court remanded for the district court to determine whether the affidavit constituted a Rule 4(a)(6) motion and, if so, whether to grant it; the district court construed the affidavit as a Rule 4(a)(6) motion and denied it on August 8, 2016.
- The district court found service was complete upon mailing to the Luzerne County Correctional Facility under Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C) and Rule 77(d), and Jacobs conceded he was housed there when the clerk mailed the order.
- Jacobs did not produce the administrative grievances he claimed to have filed alleging mail interference; the district court and this panel relied on his burden to prove delayed receipt.
- The court also noted Jacobs had actual knowledge of the dismissal by the end of August but waited until September 29, 2015 to file his motion, failing to act with reasonable diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court should reopen the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6) | Jacobs argued he did not receive notice of the dismissal until Sept. 28, 2015 because prison officials interfered with his mail, so Rule 4(a)(6) relief is warranted | District court argued service was effective upon mailing to the correctional facility under Rule 5(b)(2)(C)/Rule 77(d); Jacobs failed to prove delayed receipt and was not diligent | Denied: service was complete upon mailing; Jacobs failed to prove delayed receipt and did not act with reasonable diligence, so Rule 4(a)(6) relief not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rinaldi, 447 F.3d 192 (3d Cir.) (standard of review for Rule 4(a)(6) denial)
- McDaniel v. Moore, 292 F.3d 1304 (11th Cir.) (movant bears burden to prove delayed receipt)
- In re WorldCom, Inc., 708 F.3d 327 (2d Cir.) (district court may consider litigant diligence under Rule 4(a)(6))
- Latham v. Wells Fargo Bank, 987 F.2d 1199 (5th Cir.) (parties have duty to inquire periodically into litigation status)