×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Mailbox Rule Applies to Trust Fund Statement
The court of appeals for the ninth circuit held that Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 108 S.Ct. 2379 (1988) applies to the filing of trust fund account statements as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) of the PLRA's filing fee requirements. Curtis James, an Arizona state prisoner, filed a § 1983 suit which the district court dismissed for James' failure to file his prison trust account statement in a timely manner. James then submitted the trust fund statement with a sworn affidavit stating that he had mailed the trust fund information to the court within the 30 day period but which the district court had received and filed after the 30 day period had run. The district court did not reconsider its ruling. The court of appeals vacated and remanded. The appeals court held that because James had submitted a sworn statement saying he had complied in a timely manner with the court's 30 day deadline, the district court was required to either accept the allegation as true or make a factual finding to the contrary based upon an adequate evidentiary showing by the opposing party. Because the lower court did not make these findings the case was remanded for further proceedings. See: James v. Madison Street Jail, 122 F.3d 27 (9th Cir. 1997).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
James v. Madison Street Jail
| Year | 1997 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 122 F.3d 27 (9th Cir. 1997) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James v. Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5905 (9th Cir. 07/25/1997)
[Editor's note: footnotes (if any) trail the opinion]
FOR PUBLICATION
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] CURTIS IVAN JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
[3] MADISON STREET JAIL; JAIL COMMANDER, Sgt. A3061; HOWARD, Officer, A4500; WADE, Sgt., A831; GRANADOS, Officer, OFFICER DIPIETRO; OFFICER LAYTON; JOE ARPAIO, SHERIFF; MADISON ST. KITCHEN, Defendants-Appellees.
[4] No. 96-16384
[5] D.C. No. CV-96-01062- RCB(SLV)
[6] CURTIS IVAN JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
[7] RICH, CPO; PRICHARD, CPO; DEPUTY WARDEN WHITLEY; ENGLE CSO 6821; CSO GUTIERREZ, 6811, Defendants-Appellees.
[8] No. 96-16386
[9] D.C. No. CV-96-01172-RCB(SLV)
[10] OPINION
[11] Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
[12] Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding
[13] Submitted July 14, 1997 *fn*
[14] Filed July 25, 1997
[15] Before: Procter Hug, Jr., Chief Judge, Alex Kozinski and Edward Leavy, Circuit Judges.
[16] Per Curiam Opinion
[17] COUNSEL
[18] Curtis Ivan James, Los Angeles, California, pro se, for the plaintiff-appellant.
[19] No appearance for the defendants-appellees.
[20] OPINION
[21] PER CURIAM:
[22] Curtis Ivan James, an Arizona state prisoner at the time these actions were filed, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to timely provide a trust-account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1915(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1291. We review for abuse of discretion,*fn1 and we reverse and remand.
[23] In both appeals, the district court entered an order stating that James must file a trust-account statement in accordance with S 1915(a)(2) within thirty days to proceed in forma pauperis. James submitted the trust-account statement with a sworn statement that he had mailed the statement within the thirty-day period, but the district court received and filed it after the thirty-day period had run.
[24] [1] We conclude that the rule for timely filing applicable to pro se prisoners articulated in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), applies to the filing of trust-account statements as required by S 1915(a)(2). See Faile v. Upjohn Co., 988 F.2d 985, 986-88 (9th Cir. 1993). Because James submitted a sworn statement that he timely complied with the deadline imposed by the district court, "the district court must either accept that allegation as correct or make a factual finding to the contrary upon a sufficient evidentiary showing by the opposing party." See id. at 988; see also Koch v. Ricketts, 68 F.3d 1191, 1194 (9th Cir. 1995). Because the district court failed to make such a factual finding, we vacate the district court's dismissal of these actions and remand for further proceedings. See Caldwell v. Amend, 30 F.3d 1199, 1203 (9th Cir. 1994).
[25] VACATED and REMANDED.
***** BEGIN FOOTNOTE(S) HERE *****
[26] *fn* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.
[27] *fn1 Whether we construe the district court's dismissal as a dismissal for lack of prosecution, for failure to obey an order of the court, or of a complaint as frivolous, the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996) (failure to prosecute); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to obey an order of the court); Trimble v. City of Santa Ana, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (frivolousness).
***** END FOOTNOTE(S) HERE *****
[Editor's note: Illustrations from the original opinion, if any, are available in the print version]
19970725
122 F.3d 27, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5905, 1997.C09.1329
James v. Jail, 122 F.3d 27, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5905 (9th Cir. 07/25/1997)
[Editor's note: footnotes (if any) trail the opinion]
FOR PUBLICATION
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
[2] CURTIS IVAN JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
[3] MADISON STREET JAIL; JAIL COMMANDER, Sgt. A3061; HOWARD, Officer, A4500; WADE, Sgt., A831; GRANADOS, Officer, OFFICER DIPIETRO; OFFICER LAYTON; JOE ARPAIO, SHERIFF; MADISON ST. KITCHEN, Defendants-Appellees.
[4] No. 96-16384
[5] D.C. No. CV-96-01062- RCB(SLV)
[6] CURTIS IVAN JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
[7] RICH, CPO; PRICHARD, CPO; DEPUTY WARDEN WHITLEY; ENGLE CSO 6821; CSO GUTIERREZ, 6811, Defendants-Appellees.
[8] No. 96-16386
[9] D.C. No. CV-96-01172-RCB(SLV)
[10] OPINION
[11] Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
[12] Robert C. Broomfield, District Judge, Presiding
[13] Submitted July 14, 1997 *fn*
[14] Filed July 25, 1997
[15] Before: Procter Hug, Jr., Chief Judge, Alex Kozinski and Edward Leavy, Circuit Judges.
[16] Per Curiam Opinion
[17] COUNSEL
[18] Curtis Ivan James, Los Angeles, California, pro se, for the plaintiff-appellant.
[19] No appearance for the defendants-appellees.
[20] OPINION
[21] PER CURIAM:
[22] Curtis Ivan James, an Arizona state prisoner at the time these actions were filed, appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his complaint for failure to timely provide a trust-account statement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1915(a)(2). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1291. We review for abuse of discretion,*fn1 and we reverse and remand.
[23] In both appeals, the district court entered an order stating that James must file a trust-account statement in accordance with S 1915(a)(2) within thirty days to proceed in forma pauperis. James submitted the trust-account statement with a sworn statement that he had mailed the statement within the thirty-day period, but the district court received and filed it after the thirty-day period had run.
[24] [1] We conclude that the rule for timely filing applicable to pro se prisoners articulated in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), applies to the filing of trust-account statements as required by S 1915(a)(2). See Faile v. Upjohn Co., 988 F.2d 985, 986-88 (9th Cir. 1993). Because James submitted a sworn statement that he timely complied with the deadline imposed by the district court, "the district court must either accept that allegation as correct or make a factual finding to the contrary upon a sufficient evidentiary showing by the opposing party." See id. at 988; see also Koch v. Ricketts, 68 F.3d 1191, 1194 (9th Cir. 1995). Because the district court failed to make such a factual finding, we vacate the district court's dismissal of these actions and remand for further proceedings. See Caldwell v. Amend, 30 F.3d 1199, 1203 (9th Cir. 1994).
[25] VACATED and REMANDED.
***** BEGIN FOOTNOTE(S) HERE *****
[26] *fn* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4.
[27] *fn1 Whether we construe the district court's dismissal as a dismissal for lack of prosecution, for failure to obey an order of the court, or of a complaint as frivolous, the proper standard of review is abuse of discretion. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996) (failure to prosecute); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1991) (failure to obey an order of the court); Trimble v. City of Santa Ana, 49 F.3d 583, 584 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (frivolousness).
***** END FOOTNOTE(S) HERE *****
[Editor's note: Illustrations from the original opinion, if any, are available in the print version]
19970725
122 F.3d 27, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5905, 1997.C09.1329