Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01580/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01580-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN MONTUE,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-98-1580 LKK JFM P

vs.

G. A. MUELLER, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this challenge to a 1997

decision of the California Board of Prison Terms denying him a parole date. This matter is

before the court on petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability, for appointment of

counsel, and for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from this court’s August 24, 2005

order.

This action commenced in August 1998 and proceeded to judgment on the merits

of the claims raised in petitioner’s amended petition. Judgment was entered on March 16, 2001. 

Petitioner appealed the judgment, which was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit in an order filed in that court on October 10, 2002.

On December 9, 2004, petitioner filed a document styled as a “Motion to Expand

Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure After Judgment and Request for

Case 2:98-cv-01580-LKK -JFM Document 119 Filed 03/13/06 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

2

Reconsideration of His Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 be Granted. . . .” By notice filed

December 17, 2004, the court set a briefing schedule on the motion. 

On February 1, 2005, petitioner filed an amended motion for reconsideration. 

That motion superseded petitioner’s previous motion. On August 24, 2005, this court adopted in

full the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations that petitioner’s amended motion be

construed as a second or successive habeas corpus petition and, so construed, that it be dismissed

because the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had denied petitioner’s request

for authorization to proceed with a second or successive habeas corpus application. 

On September 2, 2005, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s

September 2, 2005 order, together with a proposed habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241. On September 20, 2005, this court denied that motion. On September 30, 2005,

petitioner timely filed a notice of appeal from the September 20, 2005 order. On October 6,

2005, petitioner filed a request for a certificate of appealability, and on October 20, 2005,

petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the August 24,

2005 order, together with a notice of appeal, a motion for appointment of counsel, and an

amended motion for a certificate of appealability. 

In accordance with relevant provisions of Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, a notice of appeal must be filed thirty days from entry of the order appealed from. 

See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). When a Rule 60 motion is filed within ten days from entry of an

order, the time for filing a notice of appeal from the original order is thirty days from entry of the

order resolving the Rule 60 motion. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). 

Here, petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of this court’s August 24, 2005 order

was filed within ten days of entry of that order. In accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4), the

deadline for filing a notice of appeal from the August 24, 2005 order was therefore thirty days

after entry of the order resolving the motion for reconsideration. As noted above, that order was

filed on September 20, 2005. Petitioner’s October 20, 2005 notice of appeal from the August 24,

Case 2:98-cv-01580-LKK -JFM Document 119 Filed 03/13/06 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

1

 Petitioner’s September 30, 2005 notice of appeal from the September 20, 2005 order is

also timely.

2

 The October 20, 2005 motion supersedes the October 6, 2005 request. 

3

2005 order is therefore timely and his motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal

will be denied as unnecessary.1

Petitioner also seeks a certificate of appealability. Since this action arises from

the denial of a parole date, no certificate of appealability is required. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 2005

WL 2898068, F.3d , (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2005). Petitioner’s October 20, 2005 motion will

therefore be denied as unnecessary.2

Finally, petitioner has filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The motion will

be denied without prejudice to its renewal, as appropriate, in the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s October 20, 2005 motion for a certificate of appealability is denied

as unnecessary;

2. Petitioner’s October 20, 2005 motion for an extension of time to file a notice

of appeal is denied as unnecessary; 

3. Petitioner’s October 20, 2005 motion for appointment of counsel is denied

without prejudice to its renewal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to process petitioner’s September 30, 2005

and October 20, 2005 notices of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit.

DATED: March 10, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/mont1580.app

Case 2:98-cv-01580-LKK -JFM Document 119 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3