Denis Rivera v. VDOC
OPINION/ORDER DIRECTING LIMITED REMAND [4CCA retains jurisdiction]. Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00156-JPJ-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. Mailed to: Denis Rivera RED ONION STATE PRISON 10800 H. Jack Rose Highway P. O. Box 970 Pound, VA 24279-0000.  [17-6293]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff - Appellant,
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD CLARKE; DAVID
ROBINSON; G. K. WASHINGTON; RANDALL MATHENA; GREGORY
HOLLOWAY; SCOTT RICHESON; MALCOLM TAYLOR; KEITH DAWKINS;
DR. BRANE; JIM PARKS; HENRY PONTON; EARL BARKSDALE; GEORGE
HINKLE; ELIZABETH THORNTON; J. WALRATH; I. HAMILTON; T.
PURYEAR; J. ARTRIP; A. GALLIHAR; G. BAKER; MICHAEL YOUNCE;
WALTER SWINEY; TORI RAIFORD; DWAYNE TURNER; STACY DAY;
CHRISTOPHER GILBERT; JOE FANNIN; TONY ADAMS; G. A. ADAMS; K.
A. SYKES; R. KEGLEY; B. E. STALLARD; JACKSON; J. KING, former
counselor at Red Onion State Prison; A. B. DUNCAN, Unit Manager,
Defendants - Appellees,
EXTERNAL REVIEW TEAM; DUAL TREATMENT TEAM; UNIT MANAGER
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. (7:15-cv-00156-JPJ-RSB)
Submitted: July 20, 2017
Decided: July 24, 2017
Pg: 2 of 3
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Denis Rivera, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 3 of 3
Denis Rivera seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint.
The district court entered its order granting
summary judgment to the Defendants on December 8, 2016. Rivera filed his notice of
appeal on March 1, 2017. However, prior to filing his notice of appeal, Rivera filed a
motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The district court received Rivera’s motion on
January 9. In order for the Rule 59(e) motion to render Rivera’s notice of appeal timely
filed as to the underlying judgment, the motion was due on January 5. Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(4)(A)(v). Because Rivera is incarcerated, the motion is considered filed as of the
date it was properly delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). The record does not reveal when Rivera gave the Rule 59(e)
motion to prison officials for mailing. Accordingly, we remand the case for the limited
purpose of allowing the district court to obtain this information from the parties and to
determine whether the filing was timely under Houston v. Lack.
The record, as
supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?