 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Setala v. J.C. Penney Company2/8/2002
urt departed from the general rule that receipt by the court clerk is required by the declared deadline:
The situation of prisoners seeking to appeal without the aid of counsel is unique. Such prisoners cannot take the steps other litigants can take to monitor the processing of their notices of appeal and to ensure that the court clerk receives and stamps their notices of appeal before the 30-day deadline. Id. at 270-71.
Because a prisoner has no choice but to turn over his or her notice of appeal to prison authorities for forwarding to court clerks, the pro se prisoner is not similarly situated with other civil litigants. See id. at 275.
Although the Houston Court based its holding on an interpretation of the federal rules, other jurisdictions have also based their adoption of the "mailbox rule" on constitutional equal protection and equal court access grounds. See Haag v. State, 591 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 1992) (discussing the constitutional implications of not allowing a "mailbox rule").
A rule other than the mailbox rule would interject a levelof arbitrariness that could undermine equal protection and equal access to the courts. For example, two pro se inmates who delivered a document to prison officials at the same time, seeking the same relief, and facing the same court deadline, could be treated quite differently based entirely on happenstance. One inmate's petition might make it to the courthouse on time, while the other's might be delayed for unknown reasons. The first would obtain a full hearing, while the second would be denied relief. Such arbitrariness cannot fairly be characterized either as equal protection or equal access to the courts, and it therefore cannot be allowed. Id.
In Haag, the Supreme Court of Florida addressed the state constitutional implications of denying application of the mailbox rule to incarcerated prisoners, when considering a pro se motion for post-conviction relief. See id. at 615-17. "Under the Florida Constitution, all persons have a right to equal protection of the laws . . . . Obviously, this includes a right of equal access to the courts, which serve as the final arbiter of whether life or liberty [or property] may be forfeited lawfully." Id. at 617.
Similar considerations would appear to pertain under the Hawaii Constitution. Of course, in holding that the "mailbox rule" applies to this case, we express no opinion as to the merits of Plaintiff's substantive tort claims but are concerned only with the principle that, under our constitution, every person is guaranteed the equal protection of the laws and equal access to the courts.
III.
The "mailbox rule" established by Houston applies specifically to civil cases. See In re Flanagan, 999 F.2d 753, 758 (3d Cir. 1993) (extending the Houston rule to bankruptcy appeals because " pro se prisoner seeking to appeal a bankruptcy court order faces precisely the same problems as a prisoner who wishes to file a pro se appeal from an order dismissing a habeas petition"); Tapia-Ortiz v. Doe, 171 F.3d 150, 152 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Since, with regard to the difficulties inherent in being a pro se prisoner litigant, we see no difference between the filing of a court action and the filing of an administrative claim, we hold that [the mailbox rule] applies to a[ Federal Torts Claims Act] administrative filing."). Since the decision in Houston, state courts have also adopted the "mailbox rule" in both civil and criminal cases. See, e.g., Ex parte Powell, 674 So. 2d 1258, 1259 (Ala. 1995); In re Jordan, 840 P.2d 983, 992 (Cal. 1992); Haag, 591 So. 2d at 615-18; Commw. v. Hartsgrove, 553 N.E.2d 1299, 1300-03 (Mass. 1990). Cf. Hamel v. State, 1
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|