Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00856/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00856-2/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

Case No. 15-CV-00856-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF 

APPEAL

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LUIS ROBERTO CAMPOS,

Petitioner,

v.

KIM HOLLAND,

Respondent.

Case No. 15-CV-00856-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S 

MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 20

Petitioner Luis Campos (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (the 

“Petition”) before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 on February 2, 2015. ECF No. 1. The 

Court denied the Petition on June 20, 2016 and denied a Certificate of Appealability (“COA”). 

ECF No. 19. Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(d), Petitioner had 35 days from the Court’s 

entry of its order denying the COA in which to file a motion for a COA with the Ninth Circuit. 

That deadline expired on July 25, 2016. 

On August 10, 2016, Petitioner filed the instant motion for an extension of the deadline in 

which to file a notice of appeal.1 ECF No. 20. Respondent Kim Holland (“Respondent”) did not 

 

1

Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(d), if Petitioner files a notice of appeal with the Ninth 

Case 5:15-cv-00856-LHK Document 22 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 15-CV-00856-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF 

APPEAL

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

oppose Petitioner’s motion.

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) permits the Court to grant an extension of the 

time to file a notice of appeal or motion for a COA with the Ninth Circuit, so long as the party 

requesting the extension does so within 30 days of the expiration of the original deadline to file a 

notice of appeal and shows either “excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5); see

Washington v. Ryan, --- F.3d ----, 2016 WL 4269871 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) provides “a thirty-day grace period within which parties may request 

more time to file a [notice of appeal] upon a showing of good cause or excusable neglect” in a 

case in which appellant was required to file a notice of appeal and motion for a COA); United 

States v. Brown, 626 Fed. App’x 688 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting that Federal Rule of Appellate 

procedure 4(a)(5) permitted the district court to grant an extension of the time in which to file a 

motion for a COA). If the Court grants an extension, the Court may extend the deadline no later 

than 30 days after the original deadline or 14 days after the date when the order granting the 

motion for an extension is granted, whichever is later. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(c).

To determine whether neglect is excusable, the Court must analyze four factors first 

articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 

U.S. 380 (1993): “(1) the danger of prejudice to the opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and 

its potential impact on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the movant 

acted in good faith.” Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 

Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395); see also Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding 

that a district court ruling on a motion for an extension of time under Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4(a)(5) must apply the Pioneer factors to determine the existence of excusable neglect).

As to the first factor, the Court determines that the danger of prejudice to the opposing 

party is slight. Indeed, Respondent has not opposed the instant motion for an extension of time. 

 

Circuit instead of a motion for a COA, “the court of appeals will deem the notice of appeal to 

constitute a motion for a COA.”

Case 5:15-cv-00856-LHK Document 22 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 15-CV-00856-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF 

APPEAL

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

Under Ninth Circuit Rule 22-1(d), Respondent will have 35 days from service of Petitioner’s 

motion for a COA in which to oppose the motion, and that deadline is unaffected by this Court’s 

grant of an extension to Petitioner. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of granting Petitioner’s 

motion. See Pincay, 389 F.3d at 859 (first factor weighs in favor of granting a motion for 

extension of time to file a notice of appeal).

Turning to the second factor, the length of the delay and its potential impact on 

proceedings, Petitioner filed the motion for an extension of time on August 10, 2016—16 days 

after Petitioner’s deadline to file a motion for a COA expired and well within the 30-day deadline 

for filing a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). See Pincay, 389 F.3d 

at 859 (second factor weighs in favor of granting a motion for extension filed within 30 day 

deadline).

The third factor asks the Court to consider the reason for the delay. Here, the primary

reason for the delay was that the attorney tasked with monitoring filings in Petitioner’s case on 

Petitioner’s behalf, Kristina Carbonell, incorrectly believed that Petitioner had 60 days in which to 

file an appeal and did not open the email notification regarding this Court’s order denying the 

Petition until August 10, 2016, after the deadline to file a notice of appeal or motion for a COA 

had already passed. ECF No. 20-1, Decl. of Kristina Carbonell. Although “a lawyer’s failure to 

read an applicable rule is one of the least compelling excuses that can be offered,” and the same is 

true of a lawyer’s failure to open an email notification from the Court, there is no per se rule that 

such errors are never excusable. Pincay, 389 F.3d at 859. Rather, the Court must “determine the 

issue of excusable neglect within the context of the particular case.” Id. In the instant case, the 

attorney’s error, although careless, was not attributable to any fault of Petitioner. Moreover, 

Petitioner’s counsel was diligent in filing the instant motion for an extension the same day 

Petitioner’s counsel realized that the deadline to file a notice of appeal had expired, and 

Respondent has not opposed Petitioner’s request. Accordingly, the Court concludes that although 

the third factor does not militate in favor of granting the motion, it also does not weigh strongly 

Case 5:15-cv-00856-LHK Document 22 Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 15-CV-00856-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF 

APPEAL

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

against granting the motion. See Pincay, 389 F.3d at 860 (finding no abuse of discretion where 

the district court granted an extension of time to file a notice of appeal after counsel’s paralegal

calendared the original deadline incorrectly).

Finally, as to the fourth factor, the Court finds that the movant acted in good faith. 

Petitioner’s counsel filed the instant motion for an extension the same day the error was 

discovered, and Petitioner’s counsel has been forthright about the errors made in handling 

Petitioner’s case. Thus, the fourth factor weighs in favor of granting the motion. See id. at 859 

(finding the fourth factor weighed in favor of granting the extension motion in case where 

counsel’s paralegal calendared the original deadline incorrectly).

The first, second, and fourth Pioneer factors all weigh in favor of granting the motion, and 

the third Pioneer factor does not weigh strongly against granting the motion. Considering the 

context of the instant case, in particular the fact that Respondent has not opposed and will not be

prejudiced by granting Petitioner’s motion, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion for an 

extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal. Petitioner shall have 14 days from today in 

which to file a notice of appeal and motion for a COA with the Ninth Circuit.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-00856-LHK Document 22 Filed 08/22/16 Page 4 of 4