Steven Goodman v. D. Everett, No. 09-7384 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on June 28, 2011.

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7384 STEVEN WAYNE GOODMAN, Plaintiff Appellant, v. D. B. EVERETT, Warden, SIISP; D. ROBINSON, Regional Director, Eastern District of the DOC; GENE JOHNSON, Director of the DOC; K. BASSETT, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center; PIXLEY, Assistant Warden, SIISP; MR. PHELPS, Correctional Officer, KMCC; R. SANDIFER, Institutional Ombudsman, KMCC; JOHN/JANE DOE, Regional Ombudsman, Western Region of the DOC; K. PICKEREL, Assistant Warden, KMCC; L. HUFFMAN, Regional Director, Western Region of the DOC; G. ROBINSON, Manager, Ombudsman Services United for the DOC; JOHN JABE, Deputy Director of the DOC; HAYES, Institutional Investigator, SIISP; C. HARRIS, Housing Unit Manager and Institutional Classification Authority-Special Housing Unit; J. HARRIS, Treatment Programs Supervisor; OFFICER GILMORE, Chief Security, SIISP; JOHN/JANE DOE, #2, Central Classification Services for the DOC; G. BASS, Manager, Offender Management Services; OFFICER BARBOUR, Office Service Specialist, SIISP; MASSENBURG, Institutional Ombudsman, SIISP; W. ROLLINS, Operations Officer, SIISP; G. SIVELS, Regional Ombudsman Eastern Region of the DOC; NICHOLS, Psychologist, SIISP; RIVERS, Psychologist, SIISP; GENERAL, Psychiatrist, SIISP; L. STANDFORD, Employee of Prison Health Services and Health Service Administrator at SIISP; S. TAYLOR, Employee of Prison Health Services and Director of Nursing at SIISP; K. WATSON, Director of Audits and Regulation Compliance for Prison Health Services; C. COUTHER, Regional Nurse Administrator, Eastern Region of the DOC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (3:06-cv-00849-RLW) Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 16, 2010 Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Wayne Goodman, Appellant Pro Se. Mark R. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Steven Wayne Goodman seeks to appeal various orders of the district court entered in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) suit. The district court entered its final order on May 1, 2009. May 21, Goodman filed a Fed. R. reconsideration dated May 14. Civ. P. 59(e) * motion On for The certificate of service was neither notarized nor sworn to under penalty of perjury, and it stated that the motion was mailed first class mail, postage prepaid. The district court denied the Rule 59(e) motion on June 18. On July 16, Goodman filed a notice of appeal, dated July 15, and seeking to appeal inter alia the denial of his motion for reconsideration and the district court s May 1 order. Under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(iv), a timely motion to alter or amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) tolls the time judgment. must be question, for filing a notice of appeal of the underlying In order to be timely, a motion to alter or amend filed and within the ten district days of court * the is entry without of judgment in jurisdiction to The citations in this opinion to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to the Rules in effect at the time the relevant documents were filed in district court. The Rules were amended effective December 1, 2009, to provide different appeal periods and different methods of calculating dates. These amendments do not affect the timeliness of Goodman s appeal because the appeal period expired before the effective date of the amendments. 3 extend this time period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(2), 59(e). In this case, due to intervening weekends that are excluded from time computation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), Goodman had until May 15, 2009, Goodman s to motion file was a timely dated May Rule 14, 59(e) it motion. was not While filed until May 21. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c)(1) states that an incarcerated inmate s notice of appeal is deemed filed when deposited into the institution s mail system. Rule further notes that [i]f an institution However, the has a system designed for legal mail, the inmate must use that system to receive the benefit of this rule. For institutions without legal submit mail notarized systems, statement an inmate consistent may with Rule a declaration 4(c). See or United States v. Ceballos-Martinez, 387 F.3d 1140, 1144-45 (10th Cir. 2004); see also Porchia v. Norris, 251 F.3d 1196, 1198 (8th Cir. 2001) (holding that, even in institutions with legal mail systems, declaration or notarized statement is still required). Although the district court apparently considered Goodman s Rule 59(e) motion timely, we find that the record is insufficient to determine when Goodman delivered his Rule 59(e) motion to appropriately prison officials followed for proper filing channels and for whether legal he mail. Resolution of these questions is determinative of the issues 4 properly before this court on appeal. If the Rule 59(e) motion was not timely filed, the time to appeal the underlying judgment was not tolled, thus rendering untimely Goodman s appeal of all orders prior to June 14, 2009. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for a determination of whether Goodman s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion was timely filed. returned to this The record, as supplemented, will then be court for further consideration. We deny Goodman s motion to recuse. REMANDED 5

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.