Daniel Lanahan v. Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6948
DANIEL THOMAS LANAHAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CLIFTON T. PERKINS HOSPITAL CENTER; DR. KHLID EL SAYED; DR.
KOWAN; DR. HELSEL,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:15-cv-02512-JFM)
Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 30, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel Thomas Lanahan, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Thomas Lanahan seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition * without
prejudice for lack of exhaustion. The notice of appeal was
received in the district court after expiration of the appeal
period. Because Lanahan is confined in a Maryland institution
responsible for evaluating the competency of criminal defendants
to stand trial, his notice of appeal is considered filed as of
the date it was deposited in the institution’s internal mailing
system. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.
266, 276 (1988); Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926-27 (9th Cir.
2004) (explaining that the mailbox rule embodied in Rule 4(c)
“applies broadly to any inmate confined in an institution” and
that there are “no express limitation[s] of the rule’s
application to prisoners, or to penal institutions” (internal
quotation marks omitted)). The record does not reveal when
Lanahan gave his notice of appeal to institution 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 Fed. R. App. P. 4(c). The record, as
*
The district court construed Lanahan’s civil complaint as
seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
2
supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further
consideration.
REMANDED
3