Dotson v. MacLaren

Filing 23

OPINION AND ORDER Denying as Moot Petitioner's 21 Motion for An Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal. Signed by District Judge Arthur J. Tarnow. (CPic)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
COREY DOTSON,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 2:13-10080
HONORABLE ARTHUR J. TARNOW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DUNCAN MACLAREN,
Respondent.
______________________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR AN
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL
On September 22, 2014, this Court denied petitioner’s habeas application
that had been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, but granted petitioner a
certificate of appealability and leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Dotson v.
MacLaren, No. 2:13-CV-10080; 2014 WL 4705115 (E.D. Mich. September 22,
2014). On October 12, 2014, petitioner signed and dated a notice of appeal,
which was filed with this Court on October 21, 2014. [Dkt. # 17].1 On November
20, 2014, petitioner filed a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
For the reasons that follow, the motion for an extension of time to file an appeal is
DENIED AS MOOT.

1

Under the “prison mailbox rule,” petitioner’s notice of appeal was filed on
October 12, 2014, the date that it was signed and dated by petitioner. Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270-71 (1988).
1

Dotson v. MacLaren, 2:13-CV-10080
Fed. R. App. P. 4 (a)(1) states that a notice of appeal must be filed within
thirty days of the entry of the judgment or order from which the appeal is taken.
This time limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Department of
Corrections of Illinois, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978). The failure of an appellant to
timely file a notice of appeal deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction. Rhoden v.
Campbell, 153 F.3d 773, 774 (6th Cir. 1998).
This Court issued its judgment on September 22, 2014. Petitioner had until
October 22, 2014 to file a notice of appeal. Petitioner filed his notice of appeal on
October 12, 2014, within the 30 days for filing a notice of appeal. In light of the
fact that petitioner’s notice of appeal was timely filed, his motion for an extension
of time to file an appeal is now moot. See Steele v. Supreme Court of U.S., 255
Fed. App’x. 534 (C.A.D.C. 2007).
IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s Motion for an Extension of Time to File a
Notice of Appeal [Dkt. # 17] is DENIED AS MOOT on the ground that his Notice
of Appeal was timely filed.
S/Arthur J. Tarnow
Arthur J. Tarnow
Senior United States District Judge
Dated: February 12, 2015
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon parties/counsel of record on
February 12, 2015, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
S/Catherine A. Pickles
Judicial Assistant

2