Long v. Atlantic City Police Department
670 F.3d 436
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Long, a New Jersey state prisoner, filed an in forma pauperis § 1983 complaint on February 21, 2006 against multiple police entities and officers.
- District Court dismissed the case August 16, 2006 as barred by Heck v. Humphrey, unless Long could show invalidation of his state court conviction, and closed the case the same day.
- Under then-current rules, Long had until September 4, 2006 to file a Rule 59(e) reconsideration; he did not file by that date.
- Long filed a September 25, 2006 motion for reconsideration, alleging prison mail delay and mail being sent to his old prison, delaying receipt of the district court’s orders.
- District Court treated the motion as timely but denied reconsideration on the merits, holding Heck foreclosed relief; its memorandum and order were entered October 6, 2006.
- Long filed a notice of appeal on October 31, 2006, timely for the reconsideration denial but untimely for the August 16, 2006 dismissal order; the appeal was consolidated with related Rule 4(a) issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prison delay can toll Rule 59(e) timing to review a dismissal order | Long argues prison delay makes his Rule 59(e) timely under Rule 4(a)(4)(A). | Defendants contend no tolling applies; untimeliness remains unless proper extensions are sought. | Yes, prison delay may render an untimely Rule 59(e) timely to toll appeal under Rule 4(a)(4)(A). |
| Whether Fiorelli tolling has a 30/60-day outer limit that defeats jurisdiction | Fiorelli tolling could permit filing after the deadline if prison delay is shown. | Bowles/6 Bowles-based view treats jurisdictional deadlines strictly; tolling cannot extend 4(a)(1). | Fiorelli tolling can extend consideration if prison delay is shown; it does not override jurisdictional deadlines once applied. |
| Whether the district court correctly applied Heck to Long's complaint | Long seeks relief through § 1983 without challenging the conviction’s validity; should not be barred if DNA access is involved. | District Court properly dismissed under Heck since success would imply invalidity of conviction. | District Court did not abuse its discretion; Heck barred Long's § 1983 claim. |
| Whether this court should remand for fact-finding on prison delay | Remand is needed to determine if prison delay occurred and to what extent. | Record shows no clear delay findings; remand would be futile if jurisdiction can be decided otherwise. | Remand unnecessary; we have jurisdiction to review the denial of reconsideration and affirm. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grana, 864 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1989) (prison delay exclusion from appeal time; mailbox rule principle for inmates)
- Fiorelli, 337 F.3d 282 (3d Cir. 2003) (extends Grana to tolling of untimely Rule 59(e) motions; prison delay tolls timing)
- Poole, 368 F.3d 263 (3d Cir. 2004) (distinguishes Fiorelli; delays caused by clerk’s office not by prison delay; remand for tolling not applicable)
- Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007) (jurisdictional nature of filing deadlines; no equitable exceptions for mandatory rules)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prison mailbox rule for notices of appeal)
- Lizardo v. United States, 619 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2010) (discussion on whether Rule 4(a)(4)(A) is jurisdictional or claims-processing)