Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JUN 21 1999
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
No. 99-6079
(D.C. No. CIV-98-1055-T)
STATE OF OKLAHOMA; R. D.
ANDREWS; and DENNIS
CUNNINGHAM,
(W.D. Okla.)
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TACHA, McKAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2254.
As a preliminary matter, we must decide whether this court has jurisdiction
to hear Petitioners appeal. The district court entered its Order Nunc Pro Tunc
denying 2254 relief on January 14, 1999. Pursuant to Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), 26(a)(3), and 26(a)(4), Petitioners notice of
appeal was due on February 16, 1999, the Tuesday after a legal holiday
(Presidents Day). Petitioners notice of appeal was docketed as filed on
February 17, 1999. However, in response to a jurisdictional show cause order
issued by this court, Petitioner submitted a return receipt from the post office
indicating that he mailed an item to the district court on January 25, 1999. He
also submitted a statement by a prison official indicating that he took Petitioners
paperwork to the mailroom on January 22, 1999. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 4(c)
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, we hold that Petitioners notice of
appeal was timely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c) (If an inmate confined to an
institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil or criminal case, the notice is
timely if it is deposited in the institutions internal mail system on or before the
last day of filing.); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that pro
se prisoners notice of appeal is deemed filed when it is delivered to prison
officials for forwarding to the district court).
-2-
Monroe G. McKay
Circuit Judge
-4-