Whether a federal appellate court can recall a mandate after its issuance when an appellant files an untimely petition for rehearing outside the court's appellate jurisdiction

No question identified. : appellant but is instead the result of actions by either the clerk's office or of the NHSP-M mailroom (which is notorius for problems with legal mail). WHEREFORE, appellant respectfully requests this honorable court to: A. Provide appellant with two (2) sets of the forms required for filing a pro se inmate in forma pauperis Petition for Writ of Cetiorari; B. Provide appellant with an extension of 90 days after he receives those forms to file his petition; and C. Grant other and such relief as is ey proper, and just. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE = I hereby certify that a copy of this motion hag been mailed this day to the defendants through their counsel the New Hampshir, f£ Wstice. IAL IAL 25 Da United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 22-1328 OP pS \> JASON A. CZEKALSKI, \ Plaintiff Appellant, v. WILLIAM L. WRENN, former Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Corrections, in his individual capacity; HELEN HANKS, Commissioner, NH Department of Corrections, in her individual capacity; CHRISTOPHER H. KENCH, Director of Security, NH Department of Corrections, in both his individual and official capacities; PAULA MATTIS, Director of Forensic Services, NH Department of Corrections, in both her individual and official capacities; JON FOUTS, Director of Security, NH State Prison for Men, in both his individual and official capacities, Defendants Appellees. Before Montecalvo, Lynch, and Kayatta, ORDER OF COURT Entered: October 2, 2025 By judgment entered April 22, 2025, the court summarily affirmed the judgment of the district court. Appellant Jason A. Czekalski then filed a "motion for reconsideration," which the court construed as a petition for panel rehearing and denied by order entered July 14, 2025. Consistent with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(b), the court proceeded to issue mandate on July 22, 2025. Several weeks after issuance of mandate, appellant filed the current "Petition for En Banc Review Under Rule 40." Per Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(a), "a party seeking both forms of rehearing must file the petitions as a single document." Appellant failed to comply with this provision. Moreover, appellant made the current filing weeks after mandate had issued, despite acknowledging that he received a copy of the court's order denying panel rehearing "on July 18, 2025." At this juncture, the current filing may be construed, at most, as a motion requesting that the original panel recall the mandate. See Bos. & Maine Corp. v. Town of Hampton, 7 F.3d 281, 282 (Ist Cir. 1993) ("Although Rule 40 does grant the appellate courts authority to extend the time for filing a petition for rehearing, a court can do so only while it has jurisdiction over the case. We lack jurisdiction here. The mandate issued in this case on April 20, 1993, and '[i]ssuance of the mandate formally marks the end of appellate jurisdiction.' .. . Mandate having issued in the case before us, [] it is no longer sub judice and we lack authority to consider a petition for rehearing.") (quoting Johnson v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corp., 801 F.2d 412, 415 (D.C. Cir. 1986)); see also United States v. Fraser, 407 F.3d 9, 10 (1st Cir. 2005) ("Fraser's untimely petition for rehearing from the November 2004 decision is before us. It cannot be granted because mandate has issued. We will treat the untimely petition as a motion to recall mandate, over which we do have jurisdiction.") (citation omitted). Because appellant has not demonstrated the sort of "extraordinary circumstances" that might warrant recall of mandate, the current motion is DENIED. Kashner Davidson Sec. Corp. v. Mscisz, 601 F.3d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard). By the Court: Anastasia Dubrovsky, Clerk ce: . Jason A. Czekalski Lynmarie C. Cusack Francis Charles Fredericks Jr. Seth Michael Zoracki Nathan W. Kenison-Marvin Samuel R. V. Garland