Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01006/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01006-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL J. MATESKY, 

Petitioner,

 vs.

GEORGE GIURBINO, Warden,

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 03-1006 JSW (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

LATE APPEAL

(Docket nos. 14, 15)

Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the

constitutionality of his state conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Following briefing by the

parties, this Court denied Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus on the merits in

an order dated March 17, 2006 (docket no. 11). Three months later, on June 16, 2006,

Petitioner requested a copy of Ninth Circuit rules, which this Court forwarded to the Ninth

Circuit (docket no. 13). On August 18, 2006, Petitioner filed a request for the Attorney

General’s office to provide certain documents to him (docket no. 14). 

On September 22, 2006, Petitioner an “application for relief from default request for a

certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) and Fed. R. App. P. 22(b) (docket

no. 15). In that application, Petitioner apparently seeks leave to file a late appeal and

specifies that on May 25, 2006, more than two months after the judgment in this matter, he

was moved to a different prison and during the course of the transfer, some of Petitioner’s

property, including certain legal papers, were lost (docket no. 15 at 2).

The request to file a late appeal must be denied because it is untimely. Relief

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

Case 3:03-cv-01006-JSW Document 16 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 2
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

district court under Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 4(a)(5)

concerns motions for extension of time and Rule 4(a)(6) concerns motions to reopen time

to file an appeal. Petitioner's request was filed too late to obtain relief under either Rule

4(a)(5) or Rule 4(a)(6). Rule 4(a) provides the exclusive avenue for relief from the

expiration of the period to file a timely notice of appeal. See In re Stein, 197 F.3d 421,

426-27 (9th Cir. 2000). And Rule 4(a) is enforced without distinction between litigants

represented by counsel and those appearing pro se. See Clarke v. Lavallie, 204 F.3d

1038, 1041 (10th Cir. 2000). Moreover, according to Petitioner, his documents were lost

after the time to file an appeal had already expired. For the foregoing reasons,

Petitioner’s motions are DENIED (docket nos. 14, 15). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

 JEFFREY S. WHITE

United States District Judge

2/5/2007

Case 3:03-cv-01006-JSW Document 16 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 2