Thomas Kenyon McMeans v. Easterling CF Warden

── Thomas Kenyon McMeans v. Easterling CF Warden ── Case No.: 25-10259 Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: NEW USCA11 Case: 25-10259 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 1 of 4 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 25-10259 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ THOMAS KENYON MCMEANS, Petitioner-Appellant, versus EASTERLING CF WARDEN, Respondent-Appellee. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama D.C. Docket No. 2:23-cv-00332-MHT-CWB ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Thomas Kenyon McMeans, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s January 31, 2024, opinion and judgment dismissing his construed habeas petition; the district USCA11 Case: 25-10259 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 2 of 4 2 Opinion of the Court 25-10259 court’s June 27, 2024, order denying his motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration out of time; the magistrate judge’s Oc- tober 4, 2024, order denying his motion to reopen the appeal period under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6); and the district court’s December 17, 2024, order denying his construed motions for a certificate of appealability (“COA”) and to appeal. We previously asked the parties to address which ruling(s) the notice of appeal evinced an intent to appeal from, whether the notice was timely, and whether the challenged ruling(s) was/were final or otherwise appealable. Only the appellee responded. After reviewing that response, we issued an order directing the parties to file letter briefs concerning the denial of the Rule 4(a)(6) motion. We concluded that the district court’s December 2024 order rendered final the magistrate judge’s October 2024 or- der about the Rule 4(a)(6) motion. In his letter briefs, McMeans argues that his Rule 4(a)(6) mo- tion was timely because it was filed within 180 days after the entry of the January 2024 opinion and judgment. The appellee argues that the motion was untimely because it was not filed within 14 days after McMeans received notice of those rulings. First, we affirm the denial of McMeans’s Rule 4(a)(6) mo- tion. In his motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration out of time, McMeans stated that he received notice of the January 2024 rulings on May 21, 2024. This is supported by an affidavit he attached to the motion. Given that, he needed to file a Rule 4(a)(6) motion by June 4, 2024. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B) (providing USCA11 Case: 25-10259 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 04/01/2026 Page: 3 of 4 25-10259 Opinion of the Court 3 that such motions must be “filed within 180 days after the [ruling] is entered or within 14 days after the moving party receive[d] no- tice . . . of the entry, whichever is earlier (emphasis added)). However, his motion was filed on July 26, 2024. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) (describing the prison mailbox rule); Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (holding that, under the rule, a notice of appeal mailed by a pro se prisoner through a prison’s mail system is deemed