green
Positive treatment
Hot · 40 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 7×
69.7 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2005–2026 · 2 courts ·
…a prisoner who delivers a document to prison authorities gets the benefit of the prison mailbox rule, so long as he diligently follows up once he has failed to receive a disposition from the court after a reasonable period of time.
at p. 1223
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2001 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2001
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
United States of America v. Lamar McDonald
a prisoner who delivers a document to prison authorities gets the benefit of the prison mailbox rule, so long as he diligently follows up once he has failed to receive a disposition from the court after a reasonable period of time.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Rao v. Vista Superior Court
under the 'prison mailbox rule' of houston 27 v. lack, 487 u.s. 266 (1988), a prisoner's federal habeas petition is deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to the district court.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Starr v. Covello
under the 'prison mailbox rule' of houston v. lack, 487 u.s. 266 24 (1988), a prisoner's federal habeas petition is deemed filed when he hands it over to 25 prison authorities for mailing to the district court.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Laforte v. Godwin
under the 'prison mailbox rule' of houston v. lack, 487 23 u.s. 266 (1988), a prisoner's federal habeas petition is deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to the district court.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Stanley Ray Gracey v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
a prisoner who delivers a document to prison authorities gets the benefit of the prison mailbox rule, so long as he diligently follows up once he has failed to receive a disposition from the court after a reasonable period of time.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
McKeithan v. Varner
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
houston's rationale applies with equal force" even if "a prisoner's petition is never filed by the court.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Chevron Environmental Management Company v. Environmental Protection Corporation
merely stating 4 that the document isn't in the addressee's files or records-which is all that the state has done in 5 this case-is insufficient to defeat the presumption of receipt.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Robbie Carl Ellington, Jr. v. City of Sacramento, et al.
Under the mailbox rule, a prisoner’s pleading 1s 27 || “deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to the relevant court.” Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 28 | 2001).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Gladys Perez v. William Reubart
(3×)
REUBART Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2001))); Huizar, 273 F.3d at 1224 (describing a petitioner as reasonably diligent even when he waited 21 months to hear from a state court before seeking an update); see also Smith, 953 F.3d at 601 (“We have no trouble imaging a circumstance where a petitioner is impeded by extraordinary circumstances from working on a habeas petition for two months, but after those circumstances are dispelled, uses the next 364 days diligently. . . .”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cheadle v. Dinwiddie
He further points to Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001), which holds that the prison mailbox rule applies when a prisoner submits a court filing to the prison mailing system but the filing never actually makes it to the court.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jackson v. Warden of the Federal Detention Center at SeaTac
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
“All told, the plain 24 1 language of the habeas statute thus confirms the general rule that, for core habeas petitions 2 challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of 3 confinement.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188 , 1198 (9th Cir. 2024). 4 Though present confinement and habeas jurisdiction go hand in hand, the Ninth Circuit 5 has also explained that “jurisdiction attaches on the initial filing for habeas corpus relief, [so] it is 6 not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and the accompanying custodial change.” Francis v. 7 Riso…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Gonzales v. Antwan
Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768 , 770 n.1 (9th 28 Cir. 2010) (citing Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001)). 1 ordered to show cause why this matter should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust 2 administrative remedies.4 See ECF Nos. 8, 9 (showing of cause order; extension of time to file 3 same).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Gonzales v. Antwan
Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768 , 770 n.1 (9th 28 Cir. 2010) (citing Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001)). 1 complaint).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ramirez v. Pratt
Cal. Civil Case No. 24-CV-232 AGS 27 (DEB); Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 2001) (“Under the ‘prison mailbox rule’ of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), a prisoner’s federal habeas petition is deemed filed when he hands 28 1 (DEB).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pierson-Haupt v. Wrigley
(Doc. 13-1 at 77). 19 Petitioner is correct that the prisoner mailbox rule can apply even when “a prisoner’s 20 petition is never filed by the court.” Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001). 21 If Petitioner had given his petition to jail officials in April 2018, the filing date would be 22 deemed the date jail officials received the petition, regardless of the petition not reaching 23 state court.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Almaguer Jr. v. Nixon
Roberts v. Marshall, 627 F.3d 768 , 770 n.1 (9th 28 Cir. 2010) (citing Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001)).c
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Halfhill v. Haynes
Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 2001). 1 III.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blackgold v. Madden
Cal. Oct. 26, 2021) (discussing the petitioner’s failure to exhaust his claims 11 by not raising them in the California Supreme Court, cautioning the petitioner about the 12 statute of limitations, dismissing the case without prejudice, and instructing the petitioner 13 to file a first amended petition that cures pleading deficiencies on or before December 27, 14 2021). 15 Following the denial of that petition, on November 7, 2021, Petitioner constructively 16 filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in Imperial County Superior Court.1 (ECF 11-2 17 at 6.) He raised one claim of fabrication…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hearn v. Warden
According to both Hearn and the mailing 5 ||inmate, on October 30, 2022, Hearn “resent” the amended complaint because he feared 6 || “that the October 10, 2022 filing was not received by the court,” especially “since he had 7 ||not received his endorse[d] copy request back.” (ECF 32, at 1, 3-4.) When an inmate 8 || “delivers a document to prison authorities” but it “is never filed by the court,” the prisoner 9 || still “gets the benefit of the prison mailbox rule, so long as he diligently follows up once 10 || he has failed to receive a disposition from the court after a …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
RICHARDSON v. United States
Some circuits have placed a higher burden on the petitioner before rebuttal will be required — such as a showing of diligence sufficient to support applying the equitable mailbox rule, see Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 2001), or a requirement that the petitioner’s initial certification set forth the “who, what, when, where, how, and why of his alleged delivery to a prison official” in addition to “some other corroborating evidence,” to warrant the rule’s protections.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC) Hollingshead v. Smith
Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 2001) (a prisoner’s pro se habeas petition 11 is “deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to the relevant court.”); 12 Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). 13 II.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lucas v. Ottinger
(2×)
Plaintiff’s reliance on Garvey and the Ninth Circuit opinion it cites, Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001), is misplaced under the circumstances.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Begay v. United States
(Doc. 1 at 10.) That is the operative date of filing, although the motion was not docketed until June 1, 2021. 27 See, Huizar v. Cary, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001) (applying “prison mailbox rule” in construing filing date). 28 2 “CRDoc” refers to documents filed in the underlying criminal case. 1 with three co-defendants on seven felony counts: Conspiracy to Commit Kidnapping, First 2 Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder, Kidnapping Resulting in Death, Robbery, 3 Conspiracy to Commit Burglary, and Burglary, all felony counts.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Cruz v. Mata
For the 22 reasons discussed below, the Court recommends that Plaintiff not be allowed to proceed in forma 23 pauperis and that Plaintiff instead be required to pay the filing fee if he wishes to proceed with this 24 action. 25 26 1 Under the mailbox rule, a prisoner's pleading is “deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to 27 the relevant court.” Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d 1103, 1109 (9th Cir. 2009); Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 2001). 28 1 I. 2 DISCUSSION 3 The Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rivera v. Clark
(ECF No. 1 at 1, 11); Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 27 2001) (“Under the ‘prison mailbox rule’ of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), a prisoner’s federal habeas petition is deemed filed when he hands 28 1 No. 11, ECF No. 11-21.) The state court factual findings are presumptively reasonable and 2 entitled to deference in these proceedings.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Torrance Egan Black v. Jim Robertson
Saffold v. Newland, 250 21 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2000), vacated on other grounds, 536 U.S. 214 (2002); Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 2001). 22 The Court will consider December 29, 2020, the date on which the Petition and the attached Proof of Service by Mail were signed, as 23 the filing date. 24 2 The First Amended Petition and an attached Proof of Service by Mail were signed on January 28, 2021, and the First 25 Amended Petition was filed with the Clerk of the Court on February 26 1, 2021.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Escalante v. Shinn
(Doc. 1 at 17.) “Under the ‘prison mailbox rule’ . . . a prisoner’s federal habeas petition is deemed filed when he 28 hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to the district court.” Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir. 2001). 1 to continue these habeas proceedings (Doc. 35).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Raji Kitchen v. George Jaime
The “[mailbox] rule applies to prisoners filing habeas petitions in both federal and state courts.” Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th 24 Cir. 2001) (citation omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Michael Young v. Raybon Johnson
See Passalacqua v. McDonald, 650 F. App’x 374, 375 (9th Cir. 2016); Fue, 842 F.3d at 654-56 ; Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Sims v. Clark
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 QUINCY SIMS, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-01775-DAD-SAB (PC) ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ) RANDOMLY ASSIGN A DISTRICT JUDGE TO 13 v. ) THIS ACTION 14 KEN CLARK, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ) RECOMMENDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 15 Defendant. ) PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS BE DENIED ) 16 ) (ECF No. 2) 17 Plaintiff Quincy Sims is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed the instant action on December 1, 2020, along with a motion to proceed i…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jason Boudreau v. United States
See, e.g., Oliver v. Comm’r of Mass. Dept. of Corrections, 30 F.3d 270, 272 (1st Cir. 1994) (observing that some courts have held that a prisoner who fails to use the prison log system “forgoes the advantage of the special filing rule”) (citations omitted); see also Ray v. Clements, 19 700 F.3d 993, 1011 (7th Cir. 2012) (ruling that to receive the benefit of the prison mailbox rule, “[t]he prisoner’s sworn declaration should identify the who, what, when, where, how, and why of his alleged delivery to a prison official” and that “where the purported filing is not received by the c…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Cruz v. Pfeiffer
Plaintiff has been informed in other cases that he is subject to § 1915(g). 18 The issue now becomes whether Plaintiff has met the imminent danger exception, which requires 19 Plaintiff to show that he is under (1) imminent danger of (2) serious physical injury and which turns on 20 the conditions he faced at the time he filed his complaint on October 29, 2020.1 Andrews, 493 F.3d at 21 22 1 Under the mailbox rule, a prisoner's pleading is “deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to 23 the relevant court.” Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988); Douglas v. N…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(HC)Langley v. On Habeas Corpus
Fue v. Biter, 842 13 F.3d 650, 654 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (quoting Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 14 2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Charlton Bradshaw v. Lorie Davis, Director
See United States v. McNeill, 523 F. App’x 979, 982 (4th Cir. 2013); Ray v. Clements, 700 F.3d 993, 1004 (7th Cir. 2012); Jones v. Heimgartner, 602 F. App’x 705 (10th Cir. 2015); and Allen v. Culliver, 471 F.3d 1196, 1198 (11th Cir. 2006); and Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir. 2001).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas Dickershaid v. Matthew Martel
See id.; Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir.2001).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Steven Fue v. Martin Biter
(18×)
also: Cited "see"
BITER We readily acknowledge that we previously determined in Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir. 2001), that a prisoner was diligent despite a longer delay.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Coleman v. Allison
See, e.g., Smith v. Duncan, 297 F.3d 809, 814 (9th Cir.2002); Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2001). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eduardo Hernandez v. Marion Spearman
Moreover, the operative date remains the date the petition was delivered to prison authorities, see Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2001), not the date Hernandez gave the petition to the second prisoner for delivery.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Armando Sossa v. Ralph M. Diaz
"Under the 'prison mailbox rule’ of Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988), a prisoner’s federal habeas petition is deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing to the district court.” Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir.2001). "[T]he same rule applies to prisoners filing habeas petitions in both federal and state courts.” Id. at 1223 . 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Marcus McNeill
(2×)
The Ninth Circuit, however, found that Huizar should “get[ ] the *982 benefit of the prison mailbox rule, so long as he diligently follows up once he has failed to receive a disposition from the court after a reasonable period of time.” Id. at 1223.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Elliot Ray v. Marc Clements
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
The petitioner argued that the “period from the date he gave his first state petition to prison officials . . . to the date it was denied . . . does not count toward AEDPA’s one- year period.” Id. at 1223 (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Arthur Johnson v. James Yates
It observed that Mr. Johnson’s federal habe-as petition was at least one day late and, more likely, eight days late given that “the prison’s log of outgoing mail provides strong evidence of the date [the petitioner] handed over his petition.” Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1224 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mannix v. Phillips
We need not specifically decide whether the prison mailbox rule applies in the context of objections to a report and recommendation, cf. Noble v. Kelly, 246 F.3d 93, 97 (2d Cir.2001), or whether Mannix’s objections were waived through lack of diligence on his part, compare Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2001), with Allen v. Culliver, 471 F.3d 1196, 1198 (11th Cir.2006), because the waiver rule is “non-jurisdictional,” Spence v. Superintendent, Great Meadow Corr.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Campbell v. Henry
Under the mailbox rule, a prisoner’s pro se habeas petition is “deemed filed when he hands it *1059 over to prison authorities for mailing to the relevant court.” Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir.2001); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ratliff v. Hedgepeth
"Under the 'prison mailbox rule' ... a prisoner's ... habeas petition is deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing in the district court.” Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir.2001) (citation omitted); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 , 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hite v. Evans
Petitioner appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus as untimely based on a finding that Petitioner failed to “diligently followf ] up” as required by Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hite v. Evans
Petitioner appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a federal writ of habeas corpus as untimely based on a finding that Petitioner failed to “diligently followf ] up” as required by Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Torres v. Dexter
"Under the 'prison mailbox rule’ ... a prisoner’s ... habeas petition is deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing in the district court.” Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir.2001) (citation omitted); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 , 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Williams v. Dexter
"Under the 'prison mailbox rule' ... a prisoner’s ... habeas petition is deemed filed when he hands it over to prison authorities for mailing in the district court.” Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1222 (9th Cir.2001) (citation omitted); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 , 108 S.Ct. 2379, 2385 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bennett v. Felker
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 , 108 S.Ct. 2379 , 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988); Huizar v. Carey, 273 F.3d 1220, 1223 (9th Cir.2001).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rosalba Aguirre-Cervantes AKA Maria Esperanza Castillo
v.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
v.
Immigration and Naturalization Service
99-70861.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Dec 7, 2001.
Published
Citer courts: E.D. California (1)
273 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2001)
ROSALBA AGUIRRE-CERVANTES AKA MARIA ESPERANZA CASTILLO, Petitioner,
v.
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent,
No. 99-70861
I&NS No. Ann-vfb-ssq
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FILED DEC. 7, 2001
BEFORE: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge.
ORDER
1
Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the opinion of the three-judge panel is vacated and the matter is remanded to the BIA for the stipulated reopening of administrative proceedings.