Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03879/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03879-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID S. PERRYMAN,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID BAUGHMAN, Warden,1

Respondent.

Case No. 15-cv-03879-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING AN EXTENSION 

OF TIME TO APPEAL; AND DENYING 

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF 

APPEALABILITY

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner David S. Perryman filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 13, 2016, the Court dismissed the petition because it was a second 

petition, successive to his previous case, Case No. C 13-0311 YGR (PR), and he had not obtained 

from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals an order authorizing the district court to consider the 

petition. Dkt. 8. The Court entered judgment on the same date. Dkt. 9. 

On February 22, 2016, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal as well as an application for a 

certificate of appealability (“COA”). Dkts. 10, 11. 

In an Order dated May 18, 2016, the Ninth Circuit noted as follows: 

A review of the record demonstrates that the notice of appeal, served 

on February 18, 2016, and received by the district court on February 

22, 2016, was not filed or delivered to prison officials within 30 

days after the judgment entered on January 13, 2016. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2107(a); United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 937 (9th Cir. 2007) 

(requirement of timely notice of appeal is jurisdictional). 

[Petitioner] also filed in the district court a motion for certificate of 

appealability, served on February 18, 2016, and received by the 

district court on February 22, 2016, in which he includes a “request 

to file application late” for medical reasons. The district court has 

not had an opportunity to consider the “request to file application 

late” included in appellant’s motion for certificate of appealability. 

Dkt. 13 at 1. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court for the limited 

purpose of “allowing that court to consider whether the motion for certificate of appealability 

 

1 David Baughman, the current acting warden of the prison where Petitioner is 

incarcerated, has been substituted as Respondent pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. 

Case 4:15-cv-03879-YGR Document 14 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 4
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

served on February 18, 2016, includes a motion to extend the time to appeal under Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5), and if so, to rule on the motion.” Id. at 2. In addition, the Ninth 

Circuit further noted that “[i]f the district court grants an extension of time to appeal, this appeal is 

also remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to grant or deny a certificate of 

appealability at the court’s earliest convenience.” Id.

DISCUSSION 

I. EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL 

On February 22, 2016, Petitioner filed an application for a COA along with a “Request to 

File Application Late,” in which he requests that the Court extend the time for him to file an 

appeal due to medical reasons. Dkt. 11 at 2-4. Petitioner claims to show good cause for the 

extension on the grounds that he is a “triple bypass heart patient” and he recently had to go to an 

“outside hospital for medical treatment.” Id. at 2-3. The Court finds that Petitioner’s application 

for a COA includes a motion to extend the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4(a)(5). 

Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a notice of appeal “be 

filed with the clerk of the district court within 30 days after the entry of the judgment or order 

appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Relief from the deadline for a timely notice of appeal 

may be obtained by a motion in the district court under Rule 4(a)(5), which allows for an 

extension of time if the party requests it within thirty days of the expiration of the time to file the 

notice and shows excusable neglect or good cause. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). 

Petitioner filed his motion to extend the time to appeal within thirty days of the expiration 

of the time to file his notice of appeal (February 12, 2016), and the request shows good cause. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner an extension of time to appeal nunc pro tunc to 

February 22, 2016, the date he filed his notice of appeal. 

II. APPLICATION FOR A COA 

An appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus 

proceeding unless the petitioner first obtains a COA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 

22(b). Section 2253(c)(1) applies to an appeal of a final order entered on a procedural question 

Case 4:15-cv-03879-YGR Document 14 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

antecedent to the merits, as here. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 

“Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on procedural 

grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional claims and one directed 

at the district court’s procedural holding.” Id. at 484-85. “When the district court denies a habeas 

petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a 

COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable 

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of 

reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Id.

at 484. As each of these components is a “threshold inquiry,” the federal court “may find that it 

can dispose of the application in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue 

whose answer is more apparent from the record and arguments.” Id. at 485. Supreme Court 

jurisprudence “allows and encourages” federal courts to first resolve the procedural issue, as was 

done here. See id. 

Here, the petition was dismissed because 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) requires that 

petitioners must obtain permission from the United States Court of Appeals before filing a second 

or successive petition. Petitioner did not obtain such permission, and he does not claim that he did 

not have a prior habeas case. Because jurists of reason would not find the Court’s conclusion 

debatable or wrong, Petitioner’s application for a COA is DENIED. Dkt. 11. Petitioner may, 

however, proceed to file a request for a COA directly with the Ninth Circuit. See Nevius v. 

Sumner, 105 F.3d 453, 458 (9th Cir. 1996). 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons outlined above, the Court orders as follows: 

1. The Court finds that Petitioner’s application for a COA includes a motion to extend 

the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5), and it GRANTS Petitioner 

an extension of time to appeal nunc pro tunc to February 22, 2016, the date he filed his notice of 

appeal. 

2. Petitioner’s application for a COA is DENIED. Dkt. 11. 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of this Order to the Ninth Circuit. 

Case 4:15-cv-03879-YGR Document 14 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

4. This Order terminates Docket No. 11. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 

United States District Judge 

May 27, 2016

Case 4:15-cv-03879-YGR Document 14 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 4