Momolu Sirleaf v. Harold Clark, No. 21-6598 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 20, 2023.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 21-6598 PRIEST MOMOLU V.S. SIRLEAF, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE; A. DAVIDE ROBINSON; MARK E. PEARSON; MARK E. ENGELKE; CHAPLAIN HOLLENBAUGH; CYNTHIA PUTNEY; LOUISE G. GOODE, Defendants – Appellees, and D. Y. KINSLEY, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, District Judge. (3:18-cv-00311-MHL-EWH) Submitted: November 4, 2022 Decided: February 17, 2023 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Priest Momolu V.S. Sirleaf, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The order was entered on March 9, 2021, and Sirleaf had 30 days to file his notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). The district court received Sirleaf’s notice of appeal after the expiration of the appeal period. Because Sirleaf was incarcerated at the time of the appeal, the notice was considered filed as of the date it was delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). Sirleaf stated he delivered his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing on April 14, 2021, which would make the notice untimely. However, Sirleaf also stated he did not receive the court’s order until April 13, 2021. Accordingly, we remand this case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to determine whether Sirleaf’s notice of appeal should be construed as a motion for an extension or reopening of the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), (6), and if so, whether such an extension should be granted. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration. REMANDED 3
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.
