583 F. App'x 474
5th Cir.2014Background
- Stephen C. Walker, a Texas prisoner, challenged summary judgment dismissal recommended by a magistrate judge and adopted by the district court.
- Magistrate judge issued R&R on March 8; Walker says he mailed objections on March 22 (14th day); district court adopted R&R on March 26.
- District court received Walker’s objections on March 29 and construed them as a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion for a new trial, which it denied.
- Walker argued the objections were timely under the prison-mailbox rule and therefore required de novo district-court review under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
- Fifth Circuit assumed Walker mailed objections on March 22, concluded the district court erred by treating the filings as a Rule 59 motion instead of performing de novo review, and vacated and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Walker's Argument | Defendants' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of objections | Mailed objections on March 22 (within 14 days); mailbox rule applies | Envelope postmarked March 26; thus untimely | If mailed on or before March 22, objections are timely under Thompson mailbox rule; district court should determine actual mailing date on remand |
| Standard of review for timely objections | District court must perform de novo review of objected portions under § 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) | District court treated the filing as a Rule 59 motion and applied that standard | District court erred by applying Rule 59 standard; must perform de novo review if objections are timely |
| Treatment of newly presented evidence | Walker may have submitted new evidence with objections | District court has discretion whether to consider new evidence | On remand, district court may exercise discretion to receive further evidence, guided by Performance Autoplex factors |
| Applicability of Heck to retaliation claim | Retaliation claim related to disciplinary charge is not barred by Heck even if Walker seeks damages | Magistrate judge dismissed retaliation claim because Walker sought return of contraband, which would implicate invalidating disciplinary action | Heck does not bar retaliation damages claim; prisoner need not show favorable disciplinary outcome to pursue retaliation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. Rasberry, 993 F.2d 513 (5th Cir. 1993) (prisoner mailbox rule: filing deemed made when delivered to prison officials)
- United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219 (5th Cir. 1989) (district court must perform de novo review of timely objections to magistrate R&R)
- Performance Autoplex II Ltd. v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., 322 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. 2003) (factors for admitting new evidence on reconsideration)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1994) (title VII of favorable-termination requirement; does not bar certain retaliation claims seeking damages)