Slama v. City of Madera, et al

Filing 227

ORDER Granting Nunc Pro Tunc, Plaintiff's 220 Motion for Extension of Time to File an Appeal, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/5/13. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ANTHONY DEAN SLAMA,
Plaintiff,

11
12
v.

Case No. 1:08-cv-00810-SKO
ORDER GRANTING NUNC PRO TUNC
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN
APPEAL

13
(Docket No. 220)
14

CITY OF MADERA, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

17
18

Plaintiff Anthony Dean Slama ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19 pauperis filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 17, 2007, and the
20 case was removed to federal court on June 9, 2008. (Doc. 1.) On September 5, 2013, after a
21 three-day jury trial, judgment was entered in favor of Defendants Shant Sheklanian and Josh
22 Chavez (collectively "Defendants") and against Plaintiff based on the jury's verdict.

(Docs.

23 217-19.)
24

In a motion filed on September 25, 2013, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file a

25 notice of appeal, along with requesting other relief. (Doc. 220.) In its September 30, 2013, order,
26 the Court ruled on Plaintiff's requests for other relief but inadvertently failed to address the request
27 for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. (Doc. 222.)
28

1

A notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days from the date of entry of judgment.

2 Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The Court may grant an extension of time to file an appeal if the motion
3 seeking the extension is filed no later than thirty days after the thirty-day period in Rule 4(a)(1)
4 expires. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(i).
Plaintiff’s motion requesting an extension of time to file an appeal was timely, and the

5

6 Court finds good cause to grant it. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). Accordingly, Plaintiff's request
7 for an extension of time to file an appeal is GRANTED nunc pro tunc as of September 30, 2013,
8 the date of the Court's order addressing the other requests for relief in Plaintiff's motion. (Doc.
9 222.)
Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5)(C), Plaintiff’s notice of appeal was required to be filed on or

10

11 before November 6, 2013. As such, Plaintiff's notice of appeal, filed on October 30, 2013, is
12 timely.
13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1.

15
16

GRANTED nunc pro tunc as of September 30, 2013;
2.

17
18

Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file an appeal (Doc. 220) is

Plaintiff's notice of appeal (Doc. 224), filed on October 30, 2013, is deemed timely;
and

3.

19

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff and the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 5, 2013

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2