Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_97-cv-20236/USCOURTS-cand-5_97-cv-20236-0/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

27

28

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions for Reconsideration

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.97\Garcia236denrecon 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANGEL GARCIA,

Petitioner,

 vs.

SUSAN L. HUBBARD, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 97-20236 RMW (PR)

ORDER DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTIONS

FOR RECONSIDERATION

TO REOPEN TIME TO

APPEAL 

(Docket Nos. 39, 42)

Petitioner, a California prisoner proceeding pro se , filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 31, 2003, the court denied the

petition and entered judgment in favor of respondent. Over three years later, petitioner

has filed two motions for reconsideration seeking to file a late appeal, asserting that he

did not receive notice of the court’s March 2003 order and judgment. The court notes

that the order sent to petitioner by the court was not returned by mail as undeliverable.

First, petitioner requests that the court reopen the instant habeas action, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Procedure 60(b), and allow petitioner an opportunity to file written

objections to the court’s denial of his habeas petition. In the alternative, petitioner asks

the court to reopen the time to appeal from the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). See petitioner’s motion at 1-4. 

Case 5:97-cv-20236-RMW Document 44 Filed 01/05/07 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions for Reconsideration

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.97\Garcia236denrecon 2

Relief from the deadline for a timely notice of appeal may be obtained by a motion

in the district court under Rule 4(a)(5) (motion for an extension of time) or 4(a)(6)

(motion to reopen time to file appeal). Rule 4(a)(5) allows a motion for an extension of

time if the party requests it within thirty days of the expiration of the time to file the

notice and shows excusable neglect or good cause. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). The

extension must be to no later than thirty days after the original deadline, or ten days after

the entry of the order granting the motion, whichever is later. See id. 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) provides:

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 motion is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or

within 7 days after the moving party receives notice of the entry, whichever is

earlier;

(B) the court finds that the moving party was entitled to notice of the entry of the

judgment or order sought to be appealed but did not receive the notice from the

district court or any party within 21 days after entry; and 

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

Relief from the expiration of the time to appeal may not be sought after the 180-day

period in Rule 4(a)(6) has expired. See In re Stein, 197 F.3d 421, 425 (9th Cir. 2000). 

Rule 4(a) is the exclusive avenue for relief from the expiration of the period to file a

timely notice of appeal. See id. at 426-27 (Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) cannot be used to avoid

the expiration of the 180-day time period). It must be enforced without distinction

between counseled and uncounseled cases. See Clark v. Lavallie, 204 F.3d 1038, 1041

(10th Cir. 2000) (rejecting pro se prisoner’s motion filed more than 180 days after entry

of judgment). Because petitioner’s motions for reconsideration were not filed until more

than three years after entry of judgment, the court concludes that petitioner is not entitled

to relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) or Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). Accordingly, petitioner’s

motions for reconsideration (docket nos. 39, 42) are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/5/2007 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:97-cv-20236-RMW Document 44 Filed 01/05/07 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

Order Denying Petitioner’s Motions for Reconsideration

P:\pro-se\sj.rmw\hc.97\Garcia236denrecon 3

On 1/8/2007 , a copy of this order was mailed to the

following:

Angel Garcia

D-01785

CSP - Sacramento

C-2/226

P.O. Box 290066

Represa, CA 95671-0066

David H. Rose

Deputy Attorney General

CA State Attorney General’s Office

455 Golden Gate Ave

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Case 5:97-cv-20236-RMW Document 44 Filed 01/05/07 Page 3 of 3