WADE v. WARDEN FCI FAIRTON et al
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER, Petitioner's request to extend time to file a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 17 ) is granted, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Petitioner shall have fourteen days from the date this Memorandum and Order is entered to file his Notice of Appeal with the district clerk in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Case Closed. Signed by Judge Renee Marie Bumb on 1/13/17. (js)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
CAMDEN VICINAGE
HUGH MAURICE ALLEN WADE,
Civil Action No. 15-8925 (RMB)
Petitioner,
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
v.
WARDEN FCI FAIRTON,
Respondent.
This matter comes before the Court upon Petitioner’s letter
request to waive the time required to file an appeal. (ECF No.
17.)
For
the
reasons
stated
herein,
the
Court
will
grant
Petitioner’s request, and extend the time for Petitioner to file
a notice of appeal until fourteen (14) days from the date of
entry of this Memorandum and Order, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A).
I.
BACKGROUND
On October 31, 2016, the Court issued an Opinion and Order,
denying
Petitioner’s
habeas
petition.
(ECF
Nos.
15,
16.)
On
January 3, 2017, Petitioner filed a letter request to waive the
time
required
Petitioner’s
to
letter
file
an
request
appeal.
is
1
(ECF
undated,
No.
it
17.)
arrived
Although
in
an
envelope postmarked December 28, 2016. (Id.) In support of his
motion, Petitioner stated:
I was recently advised via the court’s
opinion, that the above captioned case was
denied.
Based on the fact that the mail
initially was mailed to Ft. Dix, I am asking
the court to waive the time requirement for
filing an appeal.
I am currently hospitalized in a federal
medical center, and this is the first day I
have had enough energy to respond to the
court’s decision.
(ECF No. 17, at 1-2.)
II.
GOVERNINING LAW
Requests to extend the time to appeal are governed by Fed.
R. App. P. 4. “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a
civil
case
is
a
jurisdictional
requirement.”
See
Bowles
v.
Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213 (2007). “[W]hen an appeal is taken
beyond the time set out in the Rule, an appellate court is
without jurisdiction to entertain and decide it.” Id. In a civil
case, with certain exceptions not applicable here, the notice of
appeal required by Fed. R. App. P. 3 must be filed with the
district clerk within thirty days after entry of the judgment or
order appealed from.
See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1).
“Rule 4(a)(5)(A) states, ‘[t]he district court may extend
the time to file a notice of appeal if: (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
2
before or during the 30 days after the time prescribed by this
Rule 4(a) expires, that party shows excusable neglect or good
cause.’” Allen v. Vaughn, 298 F. App'x 130, 133 (3d Cir. 2008)
(citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). “No extension under . . .
Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time or 14
days
after
the
date
when
the
entered, whichever is later.”
order
granting
the
motion
is
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C).
III. ANALYSIS
Here,
appeal,
Petitioner
given
the
moved
benefit
to
of
extend
the
the
time
prisoner
to
mailbox
file
an
rule,1
on
December 28, 2016, when the envelope was postmarked. (ECF No. 17
at 4.) This Court’s judgment on Petitioner’s petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 was entered on October 31, 2016. Pursuant to Fed.
R.
App.
P.
4(a)(1)(A),
Petitioner’s
notice
of
appeal
was
required to be filed with the district clerk by December 1,
2016, thirty days after entry of the judgment or order appealed
from, as calculated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1). Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(5)(A) requires a party to move to extend the time to
appeal no later than thirty days after when the notice of appeal
was
required
Based
on
the
to
be
filed,
December
28,
in
this
2016
case,
December
postmark
on
the
31,
2016.
envelope
1
The federal prison mailbox rule provides that a pro se
prisoner’s petition is deemed filed at the moment he delivers it
to prison officials for mailing to the district court. Burns v.
Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998).
3
containing Petitioner’s request to extend the time to appeal, he
met the time requirements of Rule 4(a)(5)(A).
Petitioner must also meet the excusable neglect or good
cause requirement of Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). Petitioner has shown
good cause to extend the time to appeal because the Opinion and
Order which he seeks to appeal were mailed to Fort Dix in New
Jersey after he was transferred to the Federal Medical Center in
Rochester, Minnesota.
Petitioner was deprived of time to file a
notice of appeal through no fault of his own, as he had timely
notified the Court of his change of address.
Therefore, the
Court can grant Petitioner’s request to extend the time to file
a notice of appeal.
Rule 4(a)(5)(C) limits the extension to “30 days after the
prescribed
time
or
14
days
after
the
date
when
the
granting the motion is entered, whichever is later.”
order
Thirty
days after the prescribed time, December 31, 2016, has passed.
This Court is limited to granting a fourteen day extension,
beginning when this Memorandum and Order is entered.
IT IS therefore on this 13th day of January 2017,
ORDERED
that
the
Clerk
shall
reopen
this
matter
for
consideration of Petitioner’s request to extend time to file a
notice of appeal; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner’s request to extend time to file a
Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 17) is granted, pursuant to Fed. R.
4
App. P. 4(a)(5)(A); Petitioner shall have fourteen days from the
date this Memorandum and Order is entered to file his Notice of
Appeal with the district clerk in accordance with Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1); and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall mail a copy of this Memorandum
and
Order
to
Petitioner
at
the
Federal
Medical
Center
Rochester, Minnesota by regular U.S. Mail; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall close this matter.
s/Renée Marie Bumb
RENÉE MARIE BUMB
United States District
5
in
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?