Peacock v. MFG/Alabama, LLC

Supreme Court of Alabama

Covington County | 350 So. 3d 1 | Oct. 9, 2020

Injured Worker's Timely Appeal Filing in Question Due to Uncertain Date of Postjudgment Motion's Mailing from Prison.

Kelvin Peacock, incarcerated at the Bullock Correctional Facility, appealed a judgment from the Covington Circuit Court in favor of his former employer, MFG/Alabama, 2*2 LLC. The core issue before the court was the timing of Peacock's motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which would affect the deadline for filing his notice of appeal. The trial court had rendered judgment on August 2, 2019. Peacock claimed to have submitted his motion on August 31, 2019, providing a "filing statement" attesting that he had deposited it into the prison's mail system that day. However, the trial court's clerk's office stamped it as received on September 12, 2019.

MFG contended the motion was untimely, which, if correct, would render Peacock's subsequent notice of appeal also untimely, causing a lack of appellate jurisdiction. This timeline was critical, as Peacock needed to meet certain deadlines to maintain the validity of his appeal. Though the court's rules suggest using a notarized statement to establish timeliness from prison, prior rulings had indicated that a notarized statement was not mandatory. Due to uncertainties about when Peacock's motion was actually submitted and the critical implications on the appeal's jurisdiction, the appellate court decided to remand the case. The trial court was tasked to conclusively determine the timeliness of Peacock's motion, even if it required holding an evidentiary hearing.