David Sudduth v. Arizona Attorney General William Gasper, Warden

Good Law
90 Daily Journal DAR 13943·921 F.2d 206·1990 WL 193712·1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 21206·90 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8963
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 10, 199090-15926California306 words

Opinion

Opinion

ORDER

The district court order denying appellant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was entered on the docket on May 11, 1990. Appellant’s notice of appeal from that order was dated June 8, 1990, but was not filed until June 12, 1990. Thus, the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of the entry of the judgment, as required under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a).

Because appellant is a pro se prisoner, however, his notice of appeal is deemed filed when it was delivered to prison authorities for forwarding to the court. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2382 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Ordinarily, we will remand to the district court for the limited purpose of enabling that court to determine when the prisoner delivered the notice of appeal to prison authorities. See Miller v. Sumner, 872 F.2d 287 (9th Cir.1989); Miller v. Sumner, 921 F.2d 202 (9th Cir.1990).

However, under the facts of this case, such a remand is unnecessary. Because appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in the district court on the 31st day after entry of the order dismissing his petition, it must have been delivered to prison officials within 30 days. Otherwise, the notice of appeal could not…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.