Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06454/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06454-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO SULLIVAN, )

)

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

MIKE YARBOROUGH, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

)

No. CV-F-02-6454 REC/SMS HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY (Doc. 49)

On November 16, 2005, the Order denying petitioner's

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

was filed. Judgment for respondent was entered on November 16,

2005. 

On August 22, 2006, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and

a Request for a Certificate of Appealability. 

In this Notice of Appeal, petitioner refers to the "Court's

order of July 24, 2005." There is no such Order. By Order filed

on July 14, 2005, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was

denied. Judgment for respondent was entered on July 14, 2005. 

Case 1:02-cv-06454-REC -SMS Document 50 Filed 09/08/06 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

On August 10, 2005, petitioner filed a motion for

reconsideration, which motion was granted by Order filed on

August 22, 2005, vacating the July 14, 2005 judgment and

directing the Clerk to re-serve the findings and recommendation. 

Thereafter, as noted, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was

denied and judgment for respondent entered on November 16, 2005. 

Therefore, the court assumes that petitioner's Notice of Appeal

and Request for Certificate of Appealability refers to the

November 16, 2005 Order denying the petition for writ of habeas

corpus and the judgment for respondent entered on that date. 

Petitioner's Notice of Appeal is untimely. Pursuant to Rule

4(a)(1)(A), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Notice of

Appeal should have been filed within 30 days of entry of

judgment. Petitioner is not entitled to an extension of time to

file the Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5) because the

Notice of Appeal was filed more than 30 days the time set forth

in Rule 4(a)(1)(A). Petitioner is not entitled to re-open the

time to file the Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6). The

record establishes that petitioner was served with the November

16, 2005 Order and the Entry of Judgment on November 16, 2005 and

that service of these documents was not returned to the court. 

Furthermore, petitioner’s Notice of Appeal and Request for

Certificate of Appealability was not filed until more than 180

days after the entry of judgment on November 16, 2005. 

Because the Notice of Appeal is untimely, there is no basis

for issuance of the Certificate of Appealability. Accordingly,

Case 1:02-cv-06454-REC -SMS Document 50 Filed 09/08/06 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

petitioner’s Request for a Certificate of Appealability is

denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06454-REC -SMS Document 50 Filed 09/08/06 Page 3 of 3