Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

Amended Complaint Timely Under Prison Mailbox Rule

In an unpublished opinion, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a
lower court's dismissal of a prisoner's § 1983 action for failure to
prosecute. Under the prison mailbox rule, the amended complaint was timely.

In December 2003, Arkansas prisoner Patricia Sorenson filed suit in
federal court because she was denied use of her CPAP unit, which she
needed for sleep apnea.

On January 14, 2004, the district court ordered Sorenson to file an
amended complaint within 30 days to avoid dismissal of the action. On
February 11, 2004, she placed her amended complaint in the prison's
internal mail system. The envelope was postmarked February 12, 2004 and
USPS records indicate that a delivery attempt was made on February 13,
2004. However, the court did not receive and file the amended complaint
until February 17, 2004; three days late. On February 14, 2004, the court
dismissed the action for failing to file an amended complaint or proof of
exhaustion.

The Eighth Circuit reversed, noting that in Sulik v. Taney County,
Missouri, 316 F3d 813, 815(8th Cir. 2003), it held that "the prison
mailbox rule governs the determination of when a prisoner's civil complaint
has been filed." Applying that rule, the court found that Sorenson timely
filed her amended complaint by placing it in the prison mailing system
before the February 13, 2004 due date, as evidenced by the February 12,
2004 postmark. See: Sorenson v. Tidwell, 114 Fed Appx. 266 (8th Cir. 2004).

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal case

Sorenson v. Tidwell

Patricia A. Sorensen, Appellant, v. Perry Tidwell, Medical Administrator, McPherson Unit, ADC; Max Mobley, Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Paul Chumley, Previous Medical Administrator, Arkansas Department of Correction; John Byus, Assistant Deputy Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; John Maples, Jr., Warden, McPherson Unit, ADC; S. Sone, M.D., McPherson Unit, ADC; Shiela Jones, RN Administrator, McPherson Unit, ADC; Jim Bishop, Sheriff, Jackson County; Jim Cooksey, Former Assistant Warden, McPherson Unit, ADC; Harold S. Erwin, Circuit Judge, Jackson County; Jackson County; Arkansas Department of Correction, Larry B. Norris, Director; Correctional Medical Services; Larry May, Deputy/Assistant Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; Scott Nance, Jackson County Public Defender; Larry Norris, Director of Arkansas Department of Correction, Appellees.



No. 04-1770



UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT



114 Fed. Appx. 266; 2004 U.S. App.



October 22, 2004, Submitted

November 4, 2004, Filed



NOTICE: [**1] RULES OF THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.



PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.



DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.




COUNSEL: For PATRICIA A. SORENSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant: Patricia A. Sorensen, Newport, AR.



JUDGES: Before RILEY, McMILLIAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.



OPINION: [*267] PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Patricia Sorensen appeals the district court's dismissal of her case without prejudice for failure to prosecute. We reverse and remand.

In December 2003, Sorensen filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, primarily alleging that she was denied use of her CPAP unit, which she needed for sleep apnea. Sorensen also requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). On January 14, 2004, the district court granted Sorensen leave to proceed IFP, assessed the filing fee, and ordered her to file an amended complaint within thirty days of the date of the order, including proof of complete exhaustion of her administrative remedies. The court warned that if Sorensen did not timely and completely respond, her complaint would be dismissed [**2] without prejudice.

Sorensen prepared an amended complaint and sent it to the clerk of the district court via United States Postal Service (USPS) certified mail. Sorensen asserts that she placed the amended complaint, dated February 10, 2004, in the prison's internal mail system on February 11, 2004. The envelope containing her amended complaint is postmarked February 12, 2004. USPS records indicate that a delivery attempt was made on February 13, 2004. Sorensen's amended complaint finally was delivered to and filed with the district court on February 17, 2004. On February 19, the district court dismissed Sorensen's complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute, stating that Sorensen failed to file an amended complaint or proof of exhaustion of remedies.

In Sulik v. Taney County, Missouri, 316 F.3d 813, 815 (8th Cir. 2003), we held that "the prison mailbox rule governs the determination of when a prisoner's civil complaint has been filed." Applying the prison mailbox rule to the present case, we find Sorensen timely filed her amended complaint with the district court. Sorensen's deadline for filing the amended complaint pursuant to the district court's order [**3] was February 13, 2004. It is clear that Sorensen deposited her amended complaint in the prison mail system before the February 13 deadline because the envelope containing the amended complaint bears a February 12 postmark.

Accordingly, we reverse the district court's dismissal of Sorensen's § 1983 complaint. We remand the case to the district court for further proceedings, including a determination of whether Sorensen exhausted administrative remedies.