Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01051/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01051-4/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

05cv1051

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEPHEN FLOYD ULLRICH,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY

GENERAL et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 05cv1051-L (POR)

ORDER FINDING NOTICE OF

APPEAL TIMELY AND DENYING

AS MOOT PETITION FOR

PERMISSION TO FILE A LATE

APPEAL

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (“Petition”). By order filed July 9, 2007, the court dismissed the

petition as barred by the statute of limitations and judgment was entered on July 10, 2007. On

January 15, 2008, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal together with a Petition for Permission to

File a Late Appeal, addressed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court construes the

Petition for Permission to File a Late Appeal as a motion for extension of time to file notice of

appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A). Because the court finds

Petitioner’s notice of appeal was timely filed, his motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

On July 23, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal. The court

construed the motion as a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) or in the alternative pursuant to Rule

60(b). If a timely motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59 or for relief under Rule 60,

Case 3:05-cv-01051-L-POR Document 44 Filed 01/23/08 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 05cv1051

if the Rule 60 motion is filed no later than 10 days after the judgment is entered, is filed in the

district court, “the time to file an appeal runs for all parties from the entry of the order disposing

of” such motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). The judgment was entered on July 10, 2007. For

the tolling provision of Rule 4(a)(4)(A) to apply, an appellant must file a timely Rule 59 motion. 

A Rule 59 motion is timely if it is filed “no later than 10 days after the entry of judgment.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 59(e). The same time limit applies to a Rule 60 motion. Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(4)(A)(vi). Pursuant to Rule 6(a)(2), intermediate Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays are

excluded when the period is less than 11 days. Judgment was entered on July 10, 2007. 

Petitioner’s motion to reconsider was filed on July 23, 2007, less than ten days after the entry of

judgment, when intermediate Saturdays and Sundays are excluded. Petitioner’s motion to

reconsider was therefore timely filed for purposes of tolling under Rule 4(a)(4)(A). The time to

file a notice of appeal did not start to run until the entry of the order on Petitioner’s motion to

reconsider. 

The order on motion to reconsider was entered on January 22, 2008, and Petitioner’s

notice of appeal was filed on January 15, 2008. If a party files a notice of appeal after the court .

. . enters a judgment -- but before it disposes of any motion listed in Rule 4(a)(4)(A) -- the notice

becomes effective . . . when the order disposing of the last such remaining motion is entered.” 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B). Accordingly, the notice of appeal was timely filed.

Because the court finds that the notice of appeal was timely filed, the Petition for

Permission to File a Late Appeal is DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 23, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LOUISA S. PORTER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:05-cv-01051-L-POR Document 44 Filed 01/23/08 Page 2 of 2