Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02097/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-02097-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONEY LYNCH

Plaintiff,

v.

WARDEN OF PLEASANT VALLEY 

STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:09-cv-02097-AWI-MJS (PC) 

ORDER:

(1) VACATING ORDER DENYING MOTION 

TO REOPEN TIME TO FILE APPEAL 

(2) DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SHOW 

CAUSE WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS WHY 

MOTION TO REOPEN TIME TO FILE 

APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE DENIED AS 

UNTIMELY

(ECF Nos. 60 & 66)

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

CLERK OF COURT TO SERVE A COPY 

OF THIS ORDER ON THE NINTH 

CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS

Plaintiff Anthoney Lynch is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Plaintiff initiated this action on December 2, 2009. (ECF No. 1.) The case was 

dismissed on February 27, 2015 for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 58.) Judgement 

was entered that day. (ECF No. 59.)

On August 17, 2015, 173 days after judgment was entered, Plaintiff filed a motion 

for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. (ECF No. 60.) The Court construed 

Case 1:09-cv-02097-AWI-HBK Document 68 Filed 01/03/17 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

Plaintiff’s filing as both a motion for an extension of time and a notice of appeal. The 

motion to extend time was denied as untimely. (ECF No. 61.) The appeal was 

transmitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

On November 15, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded Plaintiff’s 

appeal to the district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Plaintiff’s 

August 17, 2015 motion included a timely motion to reopen the time to file a notice of 

appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) and if so, to rule on said 

motion. In so doing, the Circuit Court noted that, according to the district court docket,

the February 27, 2015 judgment was not sent to Plaintiff until July 14, 2015.

Construing Plaintiff’s motion as seeking to reopen the time to file an appeal, on 

November 8, 2016, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why his motion 

to reopen time to file an appeal should not be denied as untimely. (ECF No. 64.) 

Plaintiff was given twenty-one days to respond. The twenty-one day period 

elapsed and Plaintiff did not file a response, nor did he seek an extension of time in 

which to do so. Accordingly, on December 14, 2016, the Court issued an order denying 

Plaintiff’s motion as untimely. (ECF No. 66.) That order was served on the Ninth Circuit 

Court of Appeals.

On December 23, 2016, however, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that 

because he was transferred to a new institution on November 18, 2016, he did not 

receive the Court’s order to show cause until December 14, 2016, after the deadline to 

respond had already elapsed.1(ECF No. 67.) He requests the Court grant him a thirty 

day extension to file a response to the Court’s order to show cause.

In light of the foregoing, the Court will vacate its December 14, 2016 order 

denying Plaintiff’s motion to reopen the time to file an appeal and grant Plaintiff 

additional time to respond to the order to show cause. Plaintiff will be afforded fourteen 

(14) days from the date of this order to respond. 

 

1

A Notice of Change of Address was filed with the Court on December 9, 2016. (ECF No. 65.)

Case 1:09-cv-02097-AWI-HBK Document 68 Filed 01/03/17 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s December 14, 2016 order (ECF No. 66) is VACATED;

2. Within fourteen days of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause why his motion to 

reopen the time to file an appeal (ECF No. 60) should not be denied as 

untimely;

3. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 31, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-02097-AWI-HBK Document 68 Filed 01/03/17 Page 3 of 3