Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00702/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00702-1/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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Sheldon McIntosh, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

Shelton Richardson, et. al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV11-0702-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 The Ninth Circuit has construed Petitioner’s notice of appeal as a motion to reopen 

the time for appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), and has remanded 

the matter to this Court for the limited purpose of ruling on Petitioner’s motion. The 

Court will grant the motion. 

 The Court’s order accepting Magistrate Judge Aspey’s Report and 

Recommendation (Doc. 16), and its accompanying judgment (Doc. 17), were mailed to 

Petitioner on November 15, 2011. The documents were returned to the Court as 

undeliverable on December 1, 2011. Doc. 18. On December 12, 2011, Petitioner filed a 

notice of change of address stating that he had been moved from a facility in 

Leavenworth, Kansas, to a facility in Washington, Missouri. Doc. 19. Although the 

notice was received on December 12, 2011, it was mailed by Petitioner on November 23, 

2011. Doc. 19 at 2. Thus, it appears likely that Petitioner was no longer housed at the 

Leavenworth facility when the Court’s Order and Judgment arrived, explaining why they 

were returned to this Court as undelivered. 

Case 2:11-cv-00702-DGC Document 26 Filed 04/05/12 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 

 Copies of the Court’s Order and Judgment were re-mailed to Petitioner at his new 

address on December 12, 2011. Petitioner’s notice of appeal asserts that he received the 

documents on December 16, 2011. Doc. 21. He filed his notice of appeal on 

December 22, 2011. Id. 

 Given these circumstances, it appears that all of the requirements of Rule 4(a)(6) 

have been satisfied. Petitioner did not receive notice of the Court’s entry of judgment or 

the accompanying order within 21 days after entry, he filed his notice of appeal (deemed 

to be a motion for extension of time) within 14 days of receiving the documents, and it 

appears no party will be prejudiced by the delay occasioned by these events. As a result, 

the Court grants Petitioner motion for extension of time to file his appeal. His notice of 

appeal (Doc. 21) is deemed to be timely filed. Petitioner need not file an additional 

notice of appeal. 

 A copy of this Order shall be served on the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit, and shall reference case No. 12-15086. 

 Dated this 5th day of April, 2012. 

Case 2:11-cv-00702-DGC Document 26 Filed 04/05/12 Page 2 of 2