Whether the prison mailbox rule under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c)(1)(A)(i) and 28 U.S.C. § 1746 requires a federal appellate court to deem a petition for rehearing timely filed when deposited in institutional mail by an incarcerated litigant, notwithstanding the court clerk's rejection based on the petition's physical receipt date at the court office

No question identified. : Institution-Fort Dix's institutional postal mail system on August 7, 2023, within the 14-day time limit stipulated by Fed. R. App. P. Rule 40. (see Exhibit 1) 2. Deputy Clerk Mary Frances Yeager (Deputy Clerk Yeager) of the Fifth Circuit Office of the Clerk sent a letter to district court Clerk Karen Mitchell dated August 16, 2023 that states "the judgment issued as the mandate as to (Dr. ] Capistrano..." (see Exhibit 2) 3. A subsequent letter dated August 17, 2023, in response to a Notice to the Court with a Motion for Vacatur of Clerk Lyle W. Cayce's Orders on six (6) various Motions that were all disposed of by him exceeding all the bounds of his authority, was received on August 24 2023. This letter states that "the mandate issued on August 16, 2023 and the case is closed. We are not taking any action on this Motion." (see Exhibit 3) 4. Dr. Capistrano immediately sent correspondence on August 24, 2023, with copies to each one of the 3-Judge panel who heard the Case, noticing and reminding Deputy Clerk Yeager that the Petition was mailed on August 7, 2023, and per relevant rules and statute, including the "prison mailbox rule", Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)(A)(i) and 28 USC §1746, the Petition is deemed timely filed and therefore, the case can not be closed by the Fifth Circuit until and after the Petition is either granted or denied. (see Exhibit 4) 5. A third letter from Deputy Clerk Yeager dated August 23, 2023 was received on August 29, 2023 that declares "The time for filing a petition for rehearing under Fed. R. App. P. 40 has expired. We will not take action on your petition." (see Exhibit 5) 6. Another correspondence (with copies to everyone involved in the case), was written on August 29, 2023 and addressed to the writing Judge, The Hon. Patrick E. Higginbotham, informing him of Dr. Capistrano's disagreement with Deputy Clerk Yeager, citing all the relevant rules and statute governing the "prison mailbox rule", specifically Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A)(iii) for incarcerated filers, that deemed the Petition timely filed. (see Exhibit 6) 7. Yet a fourth letter from Deputy Clerk Yeager arrived, informing Dr. Capistrano that Judge Higginbotham has granted Appellant Bubu, a co-appellant in the same case, a lengthy extension to file her petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc until September 29, 2023 in an Order dated August 24, 2023. All the while, answering in silence all of Dr. Capistrano's concerns, inquiries, and assertions. (see Exhibit 7) This DOUBLE STANDARD seriously and negatively impacts the "fairness, integrity, and public perception of judicial proceedings." 8. A Motion to Direct the Clerk of Court to Accept and Docket the Petition as Timely Filed (The Motion to CA5) was mailed and therefore filed on September 9, 2023. (see Exhibit 8) As of this writing, the Office of the Clerk has not acknowledged nor docketed the filing of either the Petition nor the Motion to CA5. 9. Another fifth letter dated August 31, 2023 from Deputy Clerk Yeager, that required a transit time of eighteen (18) days, was received on September 18, 2023 (see Exhibit 9), where she insists that "the issuance of the Court's mandate was proper because the Petition was not timely", that it "was due physically at their Office on August 8, 2023 but was received on August 21, 2023." Dr. Capistrano again, is an incarcerated litigant who has no control over when or how the legal mail here at this institution is collected, processed, stored, and delivered to the United States Postal Service. The Petition, according to Deputy Yeager is 13 days late from her calculations based on her August 8, 2023 deadline, in blissful ignorance and abject disregard of the "prison mailbox rule", Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1)(A)(i), 28 USC §1746, as well as Fed. R. App. P. 25(a)(2)(A) (iii) specifically addressing incarcerated filers. In comparison, the Petition reached their Office in record time of 13 days rather than the 18 days for her letter to arr