Arias-Maldonado v. Sisto et al

Filing 92

ORDER signed by District Judge J. Michael Seabright on 1/24/12 ORDERING that Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff may file a Notice of Appeal with this court within fourteen days after the date of this Order. (Becknal, R)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JAIME ARIAS-MALDONADO,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
D.K. SISTO, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________ )

CIV. NO. 02:08-00216 JMS/BMK
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF
APPEAL

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL
I. INTRODUCTION
In this action, pro se prisoner Jaime Arias-Maldonado (“Plaintiff”)
asserts that V.D. Brunsfield, Cpt. Arthur, and K. Kesterson (collectively
“Defendants”) transferred him from California State Prison, Solano (“CSPSolano”) to Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility in Tallahatchie, Mississippi
on the basis of race. On October 5, 2011, the court granted Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment, and judgment was entered that same day. Plaintiff
subsequently filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the October 5, 2011 Judgment,
which this court denied on November 3, 2011.
On January 5, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Release from

Default,” which this court construed as a Motion for Extension of Time to File a
Notice of Appeal (“Plaintiff’s Motion”). See Doc. No. 90. Plaintiff asserts that he
attempted to appeal this action by filing papers with the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals, but these papers were rejected on the basis that the Ninth Circuit does not
have a case in that court (Plaintiff had not filed a Notice of Appeal with this court
pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”) 4(a)(1)). Based on the
following, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
II. ANALYSIS
FRAP 4(a)(1)(A) provides that “the notice of appeal required by Rule
3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or
order appealed from.” Where a party files a motion to alter or amend judgment,
however, the 30-day time for filing a notice of appeal “runs for all parties from the
entry of [that] order].” FRAP 4(a)(4)(A)(iv). FRAP 4(a)(5)(A) allows the district
court to further extend the time to appeal where:
(i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time
prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires; and
(ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or
during the 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule
4(a) expires, that party shows excusable neglect or good
cause.
The timely filing of a motion for extension of time is “mandatory and
jurisdictional.” Alaska Limestone Corp. v. Hodel, 799 F.2d 1409, 1411 (9th Cir.
2

1986) (per curiam).
As an initial matter, the court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion is timely.
Although the court entered judgment on October 5, 2011, Plaintiff subsequently
moved to alter and/or amend the judgment, which was denied on November 3,
2011. Thus, Plaintiff’s 30-day time to appeal pursuant to FRAP 4(a) and the
additional 30-day time to file a motion for extension of time pursuant to FRAP
4(a)(5)(A) began to run from November 3, 2011. The court received Plaintiff’s
Motion for Extension of Time on January 5, 2012. Although this Motion was
received three days after the end of the 60-day time period, Plaintiff certainly
delivered his Motion to prison authorities before the time period expired and his
Motion is timely. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-72 (1988) (holding that
pro se prisoner’s notice of appeal was filed at moment of delivery to prison
authorities for forwarding to district court).1
As to the issue of excusable neglect and/or good cause, the court has
“wide discretion as to whether to excuse” the delay in filing the notice of appeal.
Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 859 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). It appears that
Plaintiff argues that his failure to file a notice of appeal is due to excusable
1

Even if Plaintiff’s Motion was filed outside the 60-day time period, viewing Plaintiff’s
filings liberally, the court would construe the papers he filed with the Ninth Circuit as a request
for an extension of time to file an appeal. These papers, received by the Ninth Circuit on
December 14, 2011, are within the 60-day time period.
3

neglect -- Plaintiff asserts that he misunderstood how to file a notice of appeal, he
has been placed on “C” status, and that the law library has had abbreviated hours.2
See Doc. No. 89, Pl.’s Decl. In determining a claim for excusable neglect, the
court must consider “(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the
length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for
the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant,
and (4) whether the moving party’s conduct was in good faith.” Pincay, 389 F.3d
at 855 (citing Pioneer Inv. Servs. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’hip, 507 U.S. 380,
395 (1993)).
Turning to these factors, the danger of prejudice to Defendants
arguably weighs in favor of denying Plaintiff’s Motion -- Defendants filed their
Motion for Summary Judgment in May 2011, and judgment was entered on
October 5, 2011. With that said, however, Plaintiff was within his rights to file his
Motion to Alter or Amend the October 5, 2011 judgment, which this court denied
on November 3, 2011, and Defendants do not suggest that the delay in Plaintiff

2

In comparison, “[t]he good cause standard applies in situations in which there is no
fault -- excusable or otherwise. In such situations, the need for an extension is usually
occasioned by something that is not within the control of the movant.” FRAP 4(a)(5)(A)(ii),
advisory committee’s note, 2002 amendment. In light of Plaintiff’s assertions in his Declaration
and the fact that Plaintiff filed some documents with the Ninth Circuit, the good cause standard
does not apply here.
4

filing a notice of appeal will impact these proceedings.3 The other factors further
weigh in favor of granting the Motion. Although Plaintiff filed his Motion at the
latter end of the 60-day period, Plaintiff was not alerted to his mistake of failing to
file a Notice of Appeal with this court until mid or late December -- Plaintiff’s
filings with the Ninth Circuit are stamped as received on December 14, 2011. See
Doc. No. 89 at p. 9 of 42. Plaintiff thereafter brought his Motion soon after
learning of his mistake and he did not appear to bring it in bad faith. Weighing all
these factors together, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the above, the court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for
Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff may file a Notice of
Appeal with this court within fourteen days after the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, January 24, 2012.

/s/ J. Michael Seabright
_____________________________
J. Michael Seabright
United States District Judge

Arias-Maldonado v. D.K. Sisto et al., Civ. No. 02:08-00216 JMS/BMK, Order Granting
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal

3

Other than summarily arguing that allowing Plaintiff to file a Notice of Appeal would
prejudice them, Defendants did not address these factors and instead argued that Plaintiff’s
Motion was not timely.
5