Appeals – District court must consider whether to reopen appeal period

Where a prisoner sent two letters to the district court, after his time to appeal from an adverse decision had expired, stating that had just been released from three months of “mental health precautions” and that prison officials had confiscated his legal materials, this court construed those letters as a motion to reopen the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). It thus remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether the prisoner was entitled to a reopening of the appeal period.

Background

Randy Lee Lassiter Jr. seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint with prejudice in part and without prejudice in part. In civil cases, parties have 30 days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on Nov. 19, 2024, so the appeal period expired on Dec. 19, 2024. On Jan. 21, 2025, Lassiter mailed a letter explaining, among other things, that he had just been released from three months of “mental health precautions” and that prison officials had confiscated his legal materials.  On March 3, 2025, Lassiter mailed another letter in which he expressed a desire to amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) or reopen it under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) or “appeal if needed.”

The district court construed the Jan. 21 letter as a motion for an extension of time in which to move for reconsideration and the March 3 letter as a Rule 60(b) motion. The district court denied both motions on April 30, 2025. Lassiter filed his notice of appeal on May 27, 2025.

Analysis

The notice of appeal is timely as to the denial of Lassiter’s Rule 60(b) motion but untimely as to the dismissal order. However, this court construes Lassiter’s Jan. 21 and March 3 letters collectively as a motion to reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6). Lassiter mailed the letters within 180 days of the entry of the dismissal order; he suggested that he did not receive timely notice of the order and he expressed a desire to appeal.

Having construed the Jan. 21 and March 3 letters collectively as a motion to reopen, the court remands to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Lassiter is entitled to a reopening of the appeal period. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for further consideration.

Remanded.

Lassiter Jr. v. Blevins, Case No. 25-6464, March 17, 2026. 4th Cir. (per curiam), from WDVA at Roanoke (Ballou). Randy Lee Lassiter Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Nathan Henry Schnetzler for Appellees. VLW 026-2-102. 4 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-2-102
Virginia Lawyers Weekly