Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04575/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04575-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANTIAGO SOTO, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

KEITH A. SUGAR,

Defendant. _________________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 09-4575 MMC (PR) 

Ninth Circuit Case No. 10-16110

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

REOPEN TIME TO FILE APPEAL

UNDER FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(6);

GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED

IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL;

DIRECTIONS TO CLERK

(Docket Nos. 9 & 16)

On September 28, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner proceeding pro se, filed the

above-titled civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Together with his complaint,

plaintiff filed an incomplete application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). That same

date, the Court notified plaintiff in writing that the action was deficient due to plaintiff’s

failure to pay the requisite filing fee or, instead, to submit a completed court-approved IFP

application. Specifically, in said notice, plaintiff was advised that he must submit a

Certificate of Funds in Prisoner’s Account completed and signed by an authorized officer at

the prison, and must attach a copy of his prisoner trust account statement showing

transactions for the last six months. Plaintiff was further advised that his failure to pay the

filing fee or, alternatively, to file a completed IFP application, within thirty days, would

Case 3:09-cv-04575-MMC Document 17 Filed 06/28/10 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

27

28

1

On October 8, 2009, plaintiff filed a renewed application to proceed in forma

pauperis. As with the original application filed by plaintiff, however, the renewed

application was incomplete, as neither a Certificate of Funds in Prisoner’s Trust Account nor

a copy of plaintiff’s trust account statement was included therewith. (See Docket No. 4.)

2

result in dismissal of the action. Along with said notice, plaintiff was sent a copy of the

court-approved prisoner’s IFP application, instructions for completing it, and a return

envelope. 

When more than thirty days had passed since the deficiency notice was sent to

plaintiff and he had not filed a completed IFP application or paid the filing fee, the Court, by

order filed November 13, 2009, dismissed the action without prejudice. (Docket No. 5.)1

 

Judgment was entered that same date. 

On November 23, 2009, the envelope containing copies of the Court’s orders

dismissing the action and entering judgment, sent by the Clerk to plaintiff at his last known

address, was returned as undeliverable. (Docket No. 8.) 

On February 24, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, in which he stated

he had only recently learned, after requesting a status update on his case, that the action had

been dismissed and that the envelope containing the order of dismissal mistakenly had been

returned by prison officials as undeliverable. Consequently, plaintiff moved the Court for the

opportunity to “respond” to the order of dismissal. (Docket No. 9.) 

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal; on May 13, 2010, the Clerk transmitted

the file to the Ninth Circuit. (Docket No. 13.) On June 7, 2010, plaintiff filed a request to

proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

On June 21, 2010, the Ninth Circuit remanded the appeal to this Court for the limited

purpose of allowing the Court to rule on plaintiff’s above-noted motion for reconsideration,

which motion the Ninth Circuit has construed as a motion to reopen the time to file an appeal

under Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Rule 4(a)(6) provides a limited exception to the usual thirty days to appeal in cases in

which the prospective appellant did not learn of entry of judgment in time to file a notice of

appeal. Specifically, Rule 4(a)(6) provides:

Case 3:09-cv-04575-MMC Document 17 Filed 06/28/10 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

27

28

3

The district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of

14 days after the date when its order to reopen is entered, but only if all the

following conditions are satisfied: 

(A) the court finds that the moving party did not receive notice under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry of the judgment or order

sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry; 

(B) the motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is

entered or within 7 days after the moving party receives notice under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier; and 

(C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced. 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(A)-(C). 

The Court finds plaintiff meets all three conditions to qualify for relief under Rule

4(a)(6). In particular: (1) plaintiff did not receive notice under Rule 77(d) of the Court’s

order of dismissal within 21 days after judgment was entered, because plaintiff’s mail

mistakenly was returned to the court as undeliverable; (2) plaintiff’s motion was filed within

180 days of the entry of judgment; and (3) no party would be prejudiced by reopening of the

time to file an appeal. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to reopen the time to file an appeal is hereby

GRANTED. Plaintiff, within fourteen (14) days of the date this order is filed, may file a

timely notice of appeal in this court. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Plaintiff’s notice of

appeal will be deemed timely if it is deposited in the prison’s internal mail system on or

before the last day for filing. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1).

Plaintiff also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (Docket No. 16.) 

Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request is hereby GRANTED. 

The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 9 and 16.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2010 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-04575-MMC Document 17 Filed 06/28/10 Page 3 of 3