Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07172/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-07172-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS J. ROMANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNKNOWN INTERNAL REVENUE 

SERVICE (IRS) AGENTS; UNKOWN 

FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION (FBI AGENTS; 

RICHMOND, CA POLICE 

DEPARTMENT; UNKOWN RICHMOND 

POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS; and 

DOES I to X, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. C 19-07172 WHA 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Plaintiff moves for a sixty day extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Plaintiff relies 

on FRAP 4(a), which provided plaintiff thirty days from the February 13 entry of judgment to 

file a notice of appeal. Plaintiff filed his motion by certified mail on April 28, seventy-five 

days after the entry of judgment.

Plaintiff does not acknowledge the untimeliness of his motion or point to an applicable 

exception. Instead, the motion merely states that an extension is necessary “due to the 

Coronavirus causing delays and shutdowns in our society.” The requirement of timely notice 

of appeal, however, is jurisdictional, United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:19-cv-07172-WHA Document 38 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

2007), and no authority permits equitable exceptions to this rule. Bowles v. Russell, 551 

U.S. 205 (2007). 

FRAP 4(a)(6) provides a statutory exception if plaintiff did not receive timely notice of 

the entry of judgment. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2107. But plaintiff did receive timely notice by 

first class mail the same day judgment was entered (Dkt. No. 34).

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2020.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-07172-WHA Document 38 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 2