Summary
finding that trustee's disclosure to the court in obtaining the relevant order must have been in good faith
Summary of this case from In re BiebelOpinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
D.C. No. CV-96-02746-LGB
Editorial Note:This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Lourdes G. Baird, District Judge, Presiding.
Before SCHROEDER, BEEZER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or used by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Ruben Odell Boulware appeals the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his claims, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Supp. II 1996), that prison officials violated his constitutional rights. The district court dismissed the action because Boulware failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) (Supp. II 1996). The complaint at issue was filed before section 1997e(a) was amended and became effective. We vacate and remand.
Boulware first mailed his section 1983 complaint to the district court on April 8, 1996, and improperly completed his Declaration in Support of Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis." On April 17, 1996, the district court denied his request to file the complaint in forma pauperis, without prepayment of filing fees. A signed verification form indicates that, on April 25, 1996, Boulware mailed from prison a motion for reconsideration of the denial, which included a properly completed declaration for in forma pauperis status. The district court granted Boulware leave to file the complaint without prepayment of fees on May 13, 1996, and filed the complaint on May 20, 1996.
On April 26, 1996, Congress enacted the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321 (1996) ("PLRA"), which amended, inter alia, section 1997e(a). See Bishop v. Lewis, 155 F.3d 1094, 1095 (9th Cir.1998). "[Section] 1997e(a), as amended by the PLRA, does not apply to actions filed prior to its enactment." Id. at 1096.
In Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988), the Supreme Court held that a prisoner's notice of appeal is filed when the notice is delivered to prison officials for the purpose of mailing to the district court. We have held that there is "no reason to treat other civil 'filing' deadlines differently than the deadline for filing a civil appeal." Faile v. Upjohn Co., 988 F.2d 985, 988 (9th Cir.1993) (applying Houston to service deadline).
Boulware delivered the complaint and a properly completed application for in forma pauperis status to prison officials for mailing before the PLRA's enactment. Because the PLRA does not amend or modify the definition of "filing" that courts have used when applying Houston, we deem the complaint filed on April 25, 1996, one day before the enactment of the PLRA. See Nigro v. Sullivan, 40 F.3d 990, 994 (9th Cir.1994) (" '[File],' left undefined, [is] susceptible to the construction given [it] in Houston and Faile." ). The district court was not required to apply the PLRA exhaustion rules to Boulware's claims.
We vacate the dismissal and remand the case so that the district court can apply the pre-PLRA section 1997e(a) to Boulware's action.
VACATED and REMANDED.