PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1910

ANDREW ALLEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ATLAS BOX AND CRATING CO., INC.; ALL-IN-ONE STAFFING, LLC,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-cv-00520-FL)

Argued: December 9, 2022 Decided: February 3, 2023

Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Vacated and remanded by published opinion. Judge Heytens wrote the opinion, in which Judge Richardson and Judge Quattlebaum joined.

ARGUED: Jonathan Y. Ellis, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mary Margaret McCudden, JACKSON LEWIS, PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: James A. Compton, MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Benjamin T. McLawhorn, THE LAW OFFICE OF BENJAMIN T. MCLAWHORN, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kathleen K. Lucchesi, JACKSON LEWIS, PC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellees. USCA4 Appeal: 20-1910 Doc: 57 Filed: 02/03/2023 Pg: 2 of 11

TOBY HEYTENS, Circuit Judge:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 says “[a] civil action is commenced by filing a

complaint with the court.” Rule 5(d)(2)(A), in turn, provides that “[a] paper not filed

electronically is filed by delivering it . . . to the clerk.” At bottom, the question before us is

whether starting a federal lawsuit sometimes requires more than what those rules say.

Because we hold the answer is no, we vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for

further proceedings.

I.

Andrew Allen claims his former employer, Atlas Box and Crating Company, fired

him because of his race. Allen filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission against Atlas and the staffing agency that helped him get the job, and concedes

he received right-to-sue letters by August 8, 2018.

On November 1, 2018—85 days later—Allen, acting pro se, delivered four

documents to the clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North

Carolina. Two of the documents were hand-completed versions of a form labeled

“Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees and Costs.” JA 10, 128.

The others were hand-completed versions of a different form labeled “Complaint.” JA 15,

44. One complaint identified Atlas as the defendant; the other named the staffing company.

The applications were stamped “filed” and entered as filed motions on the district

court’s electronic docket. JA 10, 128. In contrast, the complaints were stamped “received”

and entered as “proposed complaint[s]” on the docket, where they were treated as

attachments to the motions to be excused from the filing fee. JA 2, 15, 44.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 20-1910 Doc: 57 Filed: 02/03/2023 Pg: 3 of 11

On November 8, 2018—92 days after Allen received the right-to-sue letters—a

magistrate judge recommended denying the motions for relief from the filing fee. Allen

sought an extension of time to pay the fee and paid within the time directed by the district

court. On December 17, 2018—four days after Allen paid the filing fee and 131 days after

he received the right-to-sue letters—the district court directed the clerk to “file [Allen’s]

Click Here to Read the rest of this document