Clarence Brown v. Allison Taylor, 829 F.3d 365

Brown was civilly committed under Texas’s SVPA after completing a prison sentence; a jury found he was likely to reoffend and the commitment was affirmed on appeal.
While in civil commitment he was housed at STTC (an OVSOM contractor) and subject to strict movement and supervision rules (GPS, written permission required to leave).
Brown filed a § 1983 suit alleging various mistreatment and conditions claims; after related events he filed a Rule 59(e) motion that was received by the district court one day late.
The district court dismissed Brown’s complaint sua sponte, with prejudice, and without giving Brown notice or an opportunity to respond; it also denied his Rule 59(e) motion.
This court previously remanded (Brown I) for factual findings on Brown’s confinement and ability to file pleadings so it could determine whether the prisoner mailbox rule made the Rule 59(e) filing timely.
On remand the district court made factual findings about Brown’s confinement (very limited authorized departures; internal mail handled by STTC staff) and the Fifth Circuit concluded the mailbox rule applied; it vacated the dismissal and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prisoner mailbox rule applies to Brown’s Rule 59(e) motion given his civil-commitment status	Brown: as a pro se detainee confined at STTC, he relied on facility mail services and thus mailbox rule should deem his motion timely	State/STTC: Brown was not an incarcerated prisoner and had access to external mailboxes, so mailbox rule should not apply	Mailbox rule applies — Brown was functionally confined; his Rule 59(e) filing is deemed timely
Whether the district court could sua sponte dismiss Brown’s IFP complaint with prejudice without notice or opportunity to amend	Brown: dismissal with prejudice without notice violated due process and § 1915(e) practice; he should have been given chance to respond or amend	District court: exercised § 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) authority to dismiss sua sponte	Dismissal was erroneous — court must give notice and an opportunity to respond unless narrow exceptions apply; none applied here, so vacate and remand

Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (prisoner mailbox rule: filing deemed made when delivered to prison authorities)
Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (law-of-the-case doctrine discussion)
Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476 (law-of-the-case citation context)
Davoodi v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 755 F.3d 307 (requirement of notice before sua sponte dismissal in IFP contexts)
Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053 (exceptions to notice requirement for sua sponte dismissals)
Jacquez v. Procunier, 801 F.2d 789 (foundation for “best case” exception to notice requirement)
Lozano v. Ocwen Fed. Bank, FSB, 489 F.3d 636 (narrowing and application of Jacquez factors)
United States v. Young, 966 F.2d 164 (timeliness presumption when mailbox rule applies)
Spotville v. Cain, 149 F.3d 374 (extension of Houston to other prisoner filings)