Marlon Bartlett v. Sergeant Miller, in his individual capacity

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6058
MARLON BARTLETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SERGEANT MILLER, in his individual capacity; WILLIAM WISE, Lieutenant, in
his individual capacity; DEXTER GIBBS, Assistant Superintendent,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-00164-MR)
Submitted: June 15, 2023 Decided: June 21, 2023
Before DIAZ, RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marlon Bartlett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Marlon Bartlett appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action for failing to timely file an amended complaint and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60
motion for relief from judgment. On October 4, 2022, the district court granted Bartlett
leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the court’s order. However, through
no fault of Bartlett’s, the court inadvertently sent the October 4 order to the wrong address.
The court corrected its mistake and mailed the order to Bartlett on October 20. The court
dismissed the action 26 days later, on November 15, for Bartlett’s failure to timely file an
amended complaint. That same day, at the latest, Bartlett mailed his amended complaint.
See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (stating prison mailbox rule). The court
denied Bartlett’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 motion, explaining that although Bartlett did not receive
30 days to respond, he had sufficient time to do so and failed to move for an extension of
the original deadline. Bartlett appeals, arguing that the court erred in not affording him 30
days from October 20 to file an amended complaint. We vacate and remand.
We review de novo dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), see Martin v.
Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 248 (4th Cir. 2017), and “a district court’s interpretation of its own
orders for abuse of discretion,” Wolfe v. Clarke, 718 F.3d 277, 284 (4th Cir. 2013). Upon
such review, we conclude that the district court erred in not providing Bartlett 30 days to
respond to the order granting leave to amend as required by the clear language of the court’s
order.
Accordingly, we vacate the district court's orders and remand for further
proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --