Latimore v. Cullen
Filing
19
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL; ORDER CONSTRUING NOTICE OF APPEAL AS TIMELY-FILED. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/18/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/18/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
14
15
16
WILLIE E. LATIMORE,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
VINCE CULLEN, Warden,
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________ )
No. C 11-0538 CW (PR)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND
TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF
APPEAL;
ORDER CONSTRUING NOTICE OF
APPEAL AS TIMELY-FILED
17
18
19
This is a closed federal habeas corpus action.
The petition
20
was denied and judgment was entered in favor of Respondent on
21
September 30, 2012.
22
to file a notice of appeal (NOA).
23
Petitioner now moves for an extension of time
(Docket No. 14.)
For the
reasons stated herein, Petitioner's motion is GRANTED.
24
An appeal of right may be taken only by filing a valid NOA in
25
26
the district court within the time allowed by Federal Rule of
27
Appellate Procedure 4.
28
be filed within thirty days after judgment is entered.
App. P. 4(a)(1).
See Fed. R. App. P. 3(a)(1).
The NOA must
See Fed. R.
Under this rule, Petitioner should have filed his
1
NOA no later than October 30, 2012, which is thirty days after
2
judgment was entered.
3
November 7, 2012.
4
5
6
His notice was filed about a week later, on
Relief from the deadline for filing an NOA may be obtained by
a motion in the district court under Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 4(a)(5) (motion for an extension of time) or 4(a)(6)
7
(motion to reopen time to file appeal).
Federal Rule of Appellate
8
9
Procedure 4(a)(5) allows a motion for an extension of time if the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
party requests it within thirty days of the expiration of the time
11
to file the notice and shows excusable neglect or good cause.
12
extension under this rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the
13
prescribed time [that is, within 30 days after the deadline for
14
filing an NOA has passed] or 14 days after the date when the order
15
granting the motion in entered, whichever is later."
16
P. 4(a)(5)(C).
17
"No
Fed. R. App.
In the instant matter, the deadline to file a motion for an
18
extension under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) was
19
20
November 29, 2012, which is thirty days after the final day to file
21
an NOA, here October 30, 2012.
22
November 4, 2012, which is before November 29th, and therefore is
23
timely filed within the meaning of Federal Rule of Appellate
24
Procedure 4(a)(5).
25
November 7th, for purposes of the present motion the Court assumes
26
that Petitioner put the motion in the prison mail the day he signed
27
28
Petitioner's motion was signed on
(Though stamped as received by this Court on
it and will use that as the filing date under the prisoner mailbox
rule.
See generally Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988).)
2
1
Petitioner, then, had until November 29, 2012 to file an NOA.
2
Therefore, his NOA filed on November 7, 2012 is timely.
3
also finds that Petitioner has shown good cause.
4
Court shall process Petitioner's appeal.
5
a copy of this order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
6
The Clerk of the
The Clerk shall also send
forthwith.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
DATED: 3/18/2013
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
The Court
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?