Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01509/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01509-2/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 

FILED 

JUN 22 2015 

CLEfilK'USi'iiSrRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

BY I'J c. DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

10 TYRECE RENE CHESTANG, CASE NO. 14-CV-1509 BEN (PCL) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION 

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

[Docket No. 27] 

AMY MILLER, 

Res ondent. 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 Before this Court is a "Showing of Cause" Letter filed by Petitioner Tyrece 

16 Chestang nunc pro tunc on May 8, 2015. (Docket No. 27.) 

17 On March 9, 2015, this Court entered judgment denying the Petition for Writ 

18 of Habeas Corpus. (Docket Nos. 20, 21.) On April 16, 2015, Petitioner filed a 

19 Notice of Appeal. (Docket No. 23.) On June 12,2015, the Ninth Circuit concluded 

20 that Petitioner's Notice of Appeal was not timely. (Docket No. 28.) The Ninth 

21 Circuit then remanded the case to this Court in order to determine whether 

22 Petitioner's "Showing of Cause" Letter should be construed as a motion for 

23 extension of time to file a notice of appeal, and if so, whether the motion should be 

24 granted. 

25 Petitioner's Showing of Cause Letter explains his delay in filing a notice of 

26 appeal. Thus, it is more than likely that Petitioner filed the Letter before this Court 

27 in order to request an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The Court 

28 therefore construes the Letter as a motion for extension oftime. 

- 1 - 14cvl509 

Case 3:14-cv-01509-BEN-PCL Document 29 Filed 06/22/15 Page 1 of 2
1 A party must show good cause or excusable neglect to obtain an extension of 

2 time to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). "[S]trict time limits ... 

3 ought not to be insisted upon where restraints resulting from a pro se prisoner 

4 plaintiffs incarceration prevent timely compliance with court deadlines." Eldridge 

5 v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

6 Here, Petitioner asserts that he has access to the law library on a "selected 

7 scheduled" basis, and the limited access caused his delay in filing a timely notice of 

8 appeal. Considering the facts that Petitioner remains incarcerated, is proceeding 

9 without counsel, and endures limitations to the accessibility oflegal materials, the 

10 Court finds good cause to extend Petitioner's deadline to file a notice of appeal. 

11 Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. 

12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

13 

14 DATED: JU~, 2015 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

- 2 - 14cv1509 

Case 3:14-cv-01509-BEN-PCL Document 29 Filed 06/22/15 Page 2 of 2