Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00264/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00264-2/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

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

WO

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Steven Lee Tucker

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-0264-PHX-FJM

ORDER

The court has before it petitioner’s motion for extension of time to file his Notice of

Appeal (doc. 35). Petitioner seeks a thirty day extension to appeal our order dated November

18, 2010, denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus (doc. 33). 

We may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if: (1) the party moves “no later than

30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires”; and (2) “regardless of whether

its motion is filed before or during the 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a)

expires, that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). We

apply the “good cause” standard because petitioner moved for an extension before the

expiration of the initial time to file his notice of appeal and because there is no showing of

fault. “In such situations, the need for an extension is usually occasioned by something that

is not within the control of the movant.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii) advisory committee’s

notes to 2002 amendment. For example, the Postal Service’s failure to deliver the notice of

appeal might provide good cause for an extension. Id.

Case 2:08-cv-00264-FJM Document 36 Filed 12/01/10 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 -

Petitioner explains that he has limited access to relevant legal materials and is

hampered by mandatory full-time employment and other handicaps of incarceration.

However, these are normal circumstances for imprisoned litigants and do not alone constitute

good cause for an extension of the appeals deadline. Moreover, we previously denied

petitioner a certificate appealability because a plain procedural bar is present and a

reasonable jurist could not conclude that petitioner should be allowed to proceed further.

Order of November 18, 2010 at 9 (doc. 33). We conclude that petitioner has not

demonstrated that his appeal will be delayed by circumstances beyond his control and that

there is not good cause to grant petitioner an extension to file his notice of appeal. 

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING petitioner’s motion for an extension of time

(doc. 35). 

DATED this 1st day of December, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-00264-FJM Document 36 Filed 12/01/10 Page 2 of 2