“Under the prison mailbox rule, a habeas petition is considered filed when the prisoner provides the petition to prison officials for filing.” Keeling v. Warden, Lebanon Corr. Inst., 673 F.3d 452, 456 (6th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted); see Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008); Towns v. United States, 190 F.3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 1999). “[A]bsent contrary evidence,” the Sixth Circuit treats a petition as having been handed to prison officials on the date the prisoner signed the petition.

The same rule applies to filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus or § 2255 motion to avoid the statute of limitations. Towns v. United States, 190 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 1999).

Pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, this Court will assume that Petitioner filed his habeas petition on October 7, 2019, the day that it was signed and dated. See Towns v. U.S., 190 F. 3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 1999). --------

Here, Petitioner's pleading is not untimely because, "a prisoner's notice of appeal will be deemed timely filed if it is delivered to the proper prison authorities for forwarding to the district court within the time allotted for an appeal." Towns v. United States, 190 F.3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 1999). The Sixth Circuit has applied the prison mailbox rule to various pro se prisoner mailings, including motions for relief under § 2255.

The Sixth Circuit has applied the prison mailbox rule to various pro se prisoner mailings, including motions for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Towns v. United States, 190 F.3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 1999); see also Rule 3(d) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings ("A paper filed by an inmate confined in an institution is timely if deposited in the institution's internal mailing system on or before the last day for filing"). Absent contrary evidence, the Sixth Circuit accepts the date on which a prisoner signs a paper under penalty of perjury as the date the prisoner handed over the paper to prison officials for mailing.

Cases expand the understanding of this handing-over rule with an assumption that, absent contrary evidence, a prisoner does so on the date he or she signed the complaint. See, e.g., Goins v. Saunders, 206 Fed. Appx. 497, 498 n. 1 (6th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) ("[W]e treat the petition as filed on the date [the prisoner] signed it."); Bomar v. Bass, 76 Fed. Appx. 62, 63 (6th Cir. 2003) (order); Towns v. United States, 190 F.3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 1999) (order).Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008).

Moreover, Rule 3(d) of the Section 2255 Rules provides as follows: Towns v. United States, 190 F.3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 1999). Id.

Under the prison mailbox rule, this Court will assume that Petitioner actually filed his habeas petition on May 5, 2009, the date that it was signed and dated. See Towns v. U.S., 190 F. 3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 1999). On April 1, 2010, Petitioner filed a post-conviction motion for relief from judgment with the Wayne County Circuit Court.

The § 2255 motion is deemed to be filed when Clowers delivered it over to the proper prison officials for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-72 (1988); Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008); Anderson v. United States, 39 Fed. Appx. 132, 135-36 (6th Cir. 2002); Towns v. United States, 190 F.3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 1999). There is a dispute concerning the date when Clowers delivered his § 2255 motion to prison officials for mailing.

Anderson v. United States , 39 F. App'x 132, 135-36 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266, 270-72 (1988)). The prisoner's signature on a motion to vacate is evidence of the date upon which it was actually submitted.Anderson , 39 F. App'x at 136; Towns v. United States , 190 F.3d 468, 469 (6th Cir. 1999). However, a petitioner's signature need not be blindly credited where "contrary evidence" indicates untimely filing, seeBrand v. Motley , 526 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2008), in which case the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating timely filing.