Fernandez v. Cox et al

Filing 56

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 55 petitioner's motion for extension of time is GRANTED in part. Petitioner will have through Friday, 5/5/17, to file a notice of appeal from the final judgment.) Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/4/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9

RENE F. FERNANDEZ,

10

Petitioner,

11

vs.

12

JAMES GREG COX, et al.,

13

Case No. 2:13-cv-02158-GMN-VCF

Respondents.

ORDER

14
15

The court has denied the amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court entered

16

judgment on March 7, 2017. Petitioner has filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion

17

pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 55). The time to file a

18

Rule 60 motion is one year from entry of judgment. Petitioner does not need extra time to file that

19

motion.

20

The court assumes that petitioner wants to file a Rule 60 motion and then to appeal the final

21

judgment of this action after disposition of the Rule 60 motion. Normally, a notice of appeal must

22

be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). However, the 30-day

23

time to appeal this court’s judgment starts to run from the entry of an order disposing of a Rule 60

24

motion, if that motion is filed no later than 28 days after entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P.

25

4(a)(4)(A). The court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if petitioner files a motion for

26

extension of time within 30 days after expiration of the time to appeal. Fed. R. App. P.

27

4(a)(5)(A)(i). Appellate Rule 4 does not provide for an extension of the 28-day time to file a Civil

28

Rule 60 motion that would then toll the time to file a notice of appeal. “[T]he timely filing of a

1

notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement[,]” and “this [c]ourt has no authority to

2

create equitable exceptions. . . .” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The court cannot

3

combine the tolling provision of Rule 4(a)(4)(A) and the extension of Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(i). If this

4

court granted petitioner an extension when the rule does not specifically allow an exception, then

5

the court likely would block petitioner from any appellate review of the denial of his amended

6

habeas corpus petition.

7

The court will grant petitioner an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Petitioner

8

needs to understand that if he files a Rule 60 motion, he likely will be unable to appeal the denial of

9

the amended petition. Also, petitioner should determine whether a Rule 60 motion is what he wants

10

to pursue. “Rule 60(b) cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal.” McCarthy v. Mayo, 827 F.2d

11

1310, 1318 (9th Cir. 1987). “‘[T]he major grounds that justify reconsideration involve an

12

intervening change of controlling law, the availability of new evidence, or the need to correct a clear

13

error or prevent manifest injustice.’” Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe of Indians v. Hodel, 882 F.2d 364,

14

369 n.5 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted).

15

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 55)

16

is GRANTED in part. Petitioner will have through Friday, May 5, 2017, to file a notice of appeal

17

from the final judgment.

18

DATED: April 4, 2017

19
20

_________________________________
Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-