Baker v. United States, 670 F.3d 448

Baker, pro se, sued the United States and FCI-McKean officials under the Federal Tort Claims Act for injuries from second-hand smoke in 2004.
District Court dismissed the case on July 11, 2006 and sent notice to Baker at his former address (FCI-Lisbon).
Baker did not receive the Dismissal Order; docket shows the envelope was returned as not at that address and no forwarding occurred.
Baker later moved in 2007–2008, filing Rule 60(b), Rule 4(a)(1), Rule 4(a)(4), and Rule 4(a)(6) motions after learning of the dismissal; he received the Dismissal Order only January 7, 2008.
District Court denied the motions as untimely; Baker appealed, and the Third Circuit consolidated his appeals with related cases addressing timeliness under Appellate Rules 4(a)(4) and 4(a)(6).
Court holds that Appellate Rule 4(a)(6)’s 180-day outer limit is jurisdictional and cannot be equitably extended for prison delay; prison-delay Tolling under Rule 4(a)(4) does not apply here because delay was caused by clerk error, not prison officials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred in denying reopening under Rule 4(a)(6).	Baker argues prison delay should be excluded, starting the time from January 7, 2008.	Bowles requires strict adherence to the 180-day outer limit; no equitable extension.	No; Rule 4(a)(6) is jurisdictional and cannot be equitably extended; delay attributed to prison officials was not established.
Whether Rule 4(a)(4) tolls the time to file an appeal given alleged prison delay in delivery.	Fiorelli/Long allow tolling where prison delay occurred.	Delay here was due to clerk error, not prison delay, so tolling does not apply.	No; tolling under Rule 4(a)(4)(A) does not apply because the delay was caused by the clerk, not prison officials.

Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (jurisdictional time limits for appeals are mandatory)
Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (claims-processing vs. jurisdictional rules; applies to bankruptcy-like timing)
Grana v. United States, 864 F.2d 312 (1989) (prison-delay in mail tolling 4(b) situations (criminal context))
Fiorelli v. United States, 337 F.3d 282 (2003) (tolling of 4(a)(4)(A) for prison delay in timely motion practice)
Poole v. Family Court of New Castle County, 368 F.3d 263 (2004) (clerk’s delay not tolling when delay caused by clerk’s mailing)
Long v. Atlantic City Police Department, 670 F.3d 436 (2012) (Fiorelli controlling; fact-finding for prison-delay tolling in 4(a)(4) cases)
Baker v. Williamson, 2011 WL 6016931 (3d Cir. Dec. 5, 2011) (2011) (related case recognizing clerk-error delay impact on remedies)