Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00147/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00147-1/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

1 10cv147 WMc

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADRIAN N. CORTEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN CLARK, WARDEN,

Respondent,

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 10cv147 WMc

ORDER: (1) GRANTING REQUEST

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME [DOC. NO.

32]; (2) DENYING REQUEST FOR

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

[DOC. NOS. 33, 34]; AND (3)DENYING

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR IFP AS

MOOT [DOC. NO. 35.] 

A. Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal

On March 14, 2011, this Court denied the Petition for writ of Habeas Corpus in the aboveentitled case. [Doc. No. 31.] On April 13, 2011, Petitioner filed a Motion for an Extension of Time to

file a Notice of Appeal. [Doc. No.32.] Under Rule 4(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Appellate

Procedure, “[i]n a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4), and 4(c), the notice of

appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after the judgment or order

appealed from is entered.”). The U.S. Supreme Court has made it “clear that the timely filing of a notice

of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 127 S.Ct. 2360, 2366

(2007). A district court, however, has “limited authority to grant an extension of the 30-day time

period” upon showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Id.; see also Fed. R. App. Rule 4(a)(5)

(providing “the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if: (i) a party so moves no

later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires; and (ii) regardless of whether its

Case 3:10-cv-00147-WMC Document 37 Filed 05/13/11 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

2 10cv147 WMc

motion is filed before or during the 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party

shows excusable neglect or good cause.”) Accordingly, the court may “be permitted where appropriate,

to accept late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as well as by intervening

circumstances beyond the party’s control.” Pioneer Inv. Serv’s Co. v. Brunswick Assoc’s, 507 U.S. 380,

388 (1993). This is an “equitable” determination, and the court must consider “all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission.” Id. at 395.

Here, Plaintiff claims he failed to file a timely notice of appeal due to a prison lockdown which

affects his ability to conduct legal research . [Doc. No. 32.] The Court finds the ability to access the

prison law library to prepare legal work under lockdown conditions is an intervening circumstance

outside of the Petitioner’s control. In the interest of justice and in light of the fact Petitioner’s motion 

for extension is timely and unopposed, this Court finds good cause exists to GRANT Petitioner’s

motion for an extension of time to appeal.

Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(5)(c), upon granting an extension, the Court must give Petitioner a thirtyday extension from his original deadline or fourteen days from the date of an order granting an

extension, whichever is later. See Fed. R.App. P. Rule 4(a)(5)(c). Accordingly, the Court extends the

time for Petitioner to file a notice of appeal to fourteen days from the date of this Order.

B. Petitioner’s Request for Certificate of Appealability 

On March 14, 2011, this Court issued an order denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in

the above-entitled case. [Doc. No. 31.] On May 6, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion for Certificate of

Appealability. [Doc. No. 33.] A petitioner complaining of detention arising from state court proceedings must obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to file an appeal of the final order in a federal

habeas proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). The court may issue a COA only if the petitioner “has

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). To make a

“substantial showing,” the petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district

court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000). In the present case, the Court finds Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the

denial of his constitutional rights and reasonable jurists would agree with this Court’s resolution of

Petitioner’s constitutional claims. Accordingly, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability.

Case 3:10-cv-00147-WMC Document 37 Filed 05/13/11 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 10cv147 WMc

C. Motion for Leave to Appeal In Forma Pauperis

On May 6, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. [Doc.

No. 35.] On April 1, 2010, Petitioner was granted IFP status by the Honorable Thomas J. Whelan. [Doc.

No. 8.] Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4), “in no event shall a prisoner be prohibited from bringing a civil

action or appealing a civil action or criminal judgment for the reason that the prisoner has no assets and

no means by which to pay the initial partial filing fee.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(4) (emphasis added). Thus,

IFP status typically carries forward throughout an appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES Petitioner’s Motion for IFP as Moot. As explained above, Petitioner was previously granted

and presently retains his IFP status which will continue for purposes of appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 13 , 2011

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-00147-WMC Document 37 Filed 05/13/11 Page 3 of 3