Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00136/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00136-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY RICHARDS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY

AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et

al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-00136 CRB

ORDER

The Court dismissed plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and entered judgment in favor

of defendant on July 6, 2005. On July 28, 2005, the Court granted plaintiff’s first motion for

an extension of time to file a notice of appeal until September 5, 2005, which, because

September 5 was a national holiday, moved to September 6, 2005. On September 7, 2005,

plaintiff filed a second motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. After

carefully considering the parties’ arguments, the Court hereby declares plaintiff’s motion to

be the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal.

A motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal may be deemed the functional

equivalent of a notice of appeal if it satisfies the three requirements of Rule 3(c)(1) of the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Andrade v. Lockyer, 270 F.3d 743, 752 (9th Cir.

2001), rev’d on other grounds, Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (holding that

“respectfully request[ing]” additional time to file a notice of appeal satisfies the requisite
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2005\0136\order7noticeofappeal.wpd 2

notice of intent). Rule 3 requires a notice of appeal to: “(A) specify the party or parties

making the appeal by naming each one in the caption or body of the notice...; (B) designate

the judgment, order, or part thereof being appealed; and (C) name the court to which the

appeal is taken.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1). Furthermore, “courts will liberally construe the

requirements of Rule 3.” Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992) (noting that “the notice

afforded by a document, not the litigant’s motivation in filing it, determines the document’s

sufficiency as a notice of appeal”).

In applying the proper liberal construction of Rule 3 to this matter, the Court

concludes that plaintiff’s two motions for extensions of time have satisfied the requirements

of a notice of appeal under Rule 3. He has clearly specified the parties in both motions; he

designated the judgment of July 6, 2005 in his first motion; he has consistently acted with the

intention of filing an appeal; and defendant has received ample notice of this intention. As a

result, the Court is satisfied that plaintiff has fulfilled his obligation to file a notice of appeal,

and his motion for an extension of time is now moot. The Court recognizes, however, that

plaintiff filed his second motion one day late. But because the Court treats that motion as a

notice of appeal, it is now the responsibility of the Court of Appeals to determine if it

properly has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2005

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE