Jeremiah Leavy v. Kenneth Hutchison, 952 F.3d 830

Jeremiah Leavy was convicted of first-degree murder (and other crimes) in Tennessee in 1998 and sentenced to life.
He filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied it in June 2006.
More than a decade later Leavy moved for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) in Feb 2017; the district court denied that motion on August 24, 2018 and entered a formal judgment on September 12, 2018.
Leavy sought a certificate of appealability from this court on October 9, 2018, which was treated as a notice of appeal.
The court held that the 30-day appeal deadline runs from the district court’s order disposing of Rule 60(b) relief (per Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(i) and Civ. R. 58(a)(5)), so Leavy’s time to appeal expired on September 24, 2018.
Leavy’s submitted declarations failed to satisfy the prisoner-mailbox rule (Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)) because they did not specify the mailing date or prepaid postage; the appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Leavy's Argument	Respondent's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal	He mailed a notice of appeal in early September within 30 days	The appeal deadline ran from the district court’s Aug 24 order and expired Sept 24; Oct 9 filing is late	Appeal untimely; appellate court lacks jurisdiction
What triggers the 30‑day clock for Rule 60(b) appeals	(implied) clock should relate to the later formal judgment or mailing ambiguity	Rules require the district court’s order disposing of the motion to start the clock (Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(A)(i))	Order, not later formal entry, triggers the clock
Effect of later formal judgment or multiple dispositive entries	Leavy relied on docket confusion to justify later filing	A later judgment does not restart the clock unless it changes substantive rights	Later Sept 12 judgment did not alter substance; clock not reset
Prisoner‑mailbox rule proof	He and a fellow prisoner declared he handed a notice to prison officials before Sept 12	Declarations lack required specifics (exact date and prepaid postage) and no docketed filing or copy exists	Declarations insufficient under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); mailbox rule not met

Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chi., 138 S. Ct. 13 (2017) (timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional)
United States v. Bradley, 882 F.3d 390 (2d Cir. 2018) (later judgment does not restart appeal clock absent substantive change)
Whittington v. Milby, 928 F.2d 188 (6th Cir. 1991) (appeals clock resets only if later order revises rights settled by earlier order)
Ingram v. ACandS, Inc., 977 F.2d 1332 (9th Cir. 1992) (discusses potential unfairness when district court enters two dispositive orders)
Kline v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 927 F.2d 522 (10th Cir. 1991) (addressing similar concerns about multiple dispositive orders)
United States v. Craig, 368 F.3d 738 (7th Cir. 2004) (stating importance of prepaid postage for prison‑mailbox filings)