Redmond v. Richardson ( 2000 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 99-11390
Summary Calendar
_____________________
RANDELL JOSEPH REDMOND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARDSON, Nurse; K. RATNARAWAH, Doctor;
REVELL, Doctor; WILLIAMS, Boot Factory,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(2:97-CV-266)
_________________________________________________________________
October 30, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Randell Joseph Redmond, a Texas prisoner (# 727110), appeals
from his pro se, in forma pauperis civil rights action being
dismissed as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2),
following a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179
(5th Cir. 1985).
If necessary, this court must determine sua sponte whether it
has appellate jurisdiction. Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
(5th Cir. 1987). This case was remanded to the district court to
determine whether Redmond’s notice of appeal was filed untimely.
The district court has made the requested findings.
Redmond was required to submit his notice of appeal to prison
authorities for mailing to the district court clerk within 30 days
after the district court entered judgment. See FED. R. APP. P.
4(a)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). This rule
“does not relieve a prisoner of the responsibility of doing all
that he or she can reasonably do to ensure that documents are
received by the clerk of court in a timely manner”. Thompson v.
Raspberry, 993 F.2d 513, 515 (5th Cir. 1993). “Failure to stamp or
properly address outgoing mail ... does not constitute compliance
with this standard.” Id. (emphasis added). Redmond improperly
addressed his notice of appeal when he initially attempted to send
it to the district court clerk; by the time he properly addressed
it and submitted it to prison authorities for mailing, it was
untimely. Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED for lack of
jurisdiction. See Smith v. Smith, 145 F.3d 335, 339 (5th Cir.
1998) (“filing of a timely notice of appeal is mandatory and
jurisdictional”).
DISMISSED
2