 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Setala v. J.C. Penney Company2/8/2002
S.W.3d 434, 436 (Ark. 1999); State ex rel. Shimkus v. Sondalle, 620 N.W.2d 409, 412 (Wis. App. 2000) (distinguishing Houston, because "filing" in state court also includes other procedures such as paying fees).
Although most litigation initiated by pro se prisoners relates to ยง 1983 claims against prison officials, police, and other government employees and involves habeas corpus petitions and other post-conviction relief, the mailbox rule also applies when defendants are private litigants. In Veteto v. Yocum, 793 So.2d 814 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001), Veteto, an inmate in the Alabama state prison system, sued another prisoner, Yocum, for the balance of a loan Veteto claimed he had made to Yocum. Seeid.at 815. The district court dismissed the case for lack of prosecution when neither prisoner made an appearance in court. See id. Veteto filed a motion for reconsideration and simultaneously appealed to the circuit court. See id. The circuit court dismissed the appeal, due to the pending motion for reconsideration. See id. Plaintiff filed a second complaint, which was again dismissed because neither party appeared for trial. See id. at 815-16. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, which was stamped by the circuit clerk as "filed" on March 29, 2000, more than 14 days after the dismissal of his case. Id. at 816. Plaintiff had written on his notice of appeal, "Submission date: March 20, 2000." Id. He also, in an affidavit filed later, indicated that on March 20, 2000, three days before the expiration of the 14-day period, he had given the notice of appeal to a prison official for mailing. See id.
In considering the timeliness of the notice, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals extended Houston to civil complaints, as Alabama had first considered and adopted the Houston rule in criminal cases. The appellate court stated that "we believe that the considerations outlined by the United States Supreme Court in Houston are not changed by the nature of the litigation involved." Id. at 817. Thus, the court held that the appeal was timely filed and should not have been dismissed. See id.
Similarly, the mailbox rule was applied to private litigants in Faile v. Upjohn Co., 988 F.2d 985 (9th Cir. 1993), in which a pro se prisoner alleged that his use of the prescription drug Xanax, manufactured by defendant The Upjohn Company, resulted in depression and violent outbursts, ultimately leading to his being seriously wounded by police officers who were reacting to his violent behavior. See id. at 986. The plaintiff was subsequently imprisoned pursuant to convictions for assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder. See id.
While incarcerated, the plaintiff filed his pro se complaint. Seeid. During litigation, a pretrial order required plaintiff to respond to defendant's interrogatories and request for production in order for the court to reconsider its dismissal against plaintiff. See id. Defendant claimed those responses were postmarked two days beyond the deadline, and the trial court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the action. Seeid. at 987.
The Ninth Circuit looked to the policy considerations enunciated in Houston and extended the Houston rule to discovery documents. See id. at 987-89. The court determined that the plaintiff complied with the service deadline by tendering the documents to prison officials. See id. at 988-89. The court further remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration, noting that " hen a pro se prisoner alleges that he timely complied with a procedural deadline by submitting a document to prison authorities, the district court must either accept that allegation as correct or make a factual finding to the contrary upon a sufficient evide
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.
|
|