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)

Download PDF
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-

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?