Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02479/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-02479-2/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 – 13cv2479 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARQUISE GRADY, 

 Petitioner, 

Case No. 13-cv-2479-BAS(MDD) 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

AND DENYING IN PART 

PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT 

[ECF No. 54] 

 v. 

M.D. BITER, 

 Respondent. 

On February 10, 2016, this Court overruled Petitioner Marquise Grady’s 

objections, adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in its entirety, 

and denied Mr. Grady’s habeas petition. Judgment was entered the next day. 

However, Mr. Grady did not receive a copy of the order until August 16, 2016. Mr. 

Grady now seeks “relief from the judgment,” which effectively is a request for an 

extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration and a notice of appeal. 

I. Extension of Time To File Motion for Reconsideration 

With respect to Mr. Grady’s request for an extension of time to file a motion 

for reconsideration, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) applies. Rule 6(b) states 

that “[w]hen an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for 

Case 3:13-cv-02479-BAS-MDD Document 55 Filed 09/07/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
 – 2 – 13cv2479 

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 

good cause extend the time . . . with or without motion or notice if the court acts, or 

if a request is made, before the original time or its extension expires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

6(b)(1)(A). “Once the time has expired, a noticed motion for relief, based on a 

showing of excusable neglect, is required.” Gurvey v. Legend Films, Inc., No. 09-cv942, 2012 WL 4061773, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Sept.14, 2012) (Battaglia, J.) (citing Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B)). 

The Ninth Circuit has held that, for purposes of Rule 6(b), “excusable neglect” 

must be judged by the standard set forth in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. 

Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993). See Briones v. Riviera 

Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing Comm. for Idaho’s High 

Desert, Inc. v. Yost, 92 F.3d 814, 825 n.4 (9th Cir. 1996)) (“[T]his court [has] held 

that the Supreme Court’s analysis of ‘excusable’ neglect in Pioneer is applicable to 

Rule 6(b)[.]”). Under Pioneer, a “determination of whether neglect is excusable is an 

equitable one that depends on at least four factors: (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.” Bateman 

v. U.S. Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220, 1223-24 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Pioneer, 507 

U.S. at 395). 

Supported by evidence and through no fault of his own, Mr. Grady 

demonstrates that he did not receive this Court’s judgment until August 16, 2016. 

Upon receiving notice of the judgment, he promptly filed this request on August 24, 

2016. Weighing the Pioneer factors, the circumstances heavily favor finding that the 

delay was the result of excusable neglect. See Bateman, 231 F.3d at 1223-24. 

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Mr. Grady’s request for an extension of time to file 

a motion for reconsideration. Mr. Grady may file a motion for reconsideration under 

Rule 59(e) within 30 days after being served with this order. This order does not 

apply to a motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) as the time to file has not yet 

lapsed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(c)(1). 

Case 3:13-cv-02479-BAS-MDD Document 55 Filed 09/07/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
 – 3 – 13cv2479 

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 

II. Extension of Time To File Notice of Appeal 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) requires that a notice of appeal 

be filed by the appealing party “within 30 days after entry of judgment or order 

appealed from.” Rule 4(a)(5) permits the district court to extend the time to file a 

notice of appeal if: (1) “a party so 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). “No 

extension under this Rule 4(a)(5) may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time or 14 

days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered, whichever is later.” 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C). 

Under Rule 4(a)(6), an appealing party may also move to reopen the time to 

file an appeal. “The district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a period 

of 14 days after the date when its order to reopen is entered, but only if all of the 

following conditions are satisfied: (A) the court finds that the moving party did not 

receive notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77 (d) of the entry of the 

judgment or order sought to be appealed within 21 days after entry; (B) the motion 

is filed within 180 days after the judgment or order is entered or within 14 days after 

the moving party receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77 (d) of the 

entry, whichever is earlier; and (C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced.” 

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). 

Unfortunately, under both Rule 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6), the Court is not permitted 

to grant relief to Mr. Grady in his pursuit of a potential appeal. Admittedly through 

no fault of his own, Mr. Grady cannot satisfy the timing requirements under Rule 

4(a)(5)(A)(i) or Rule 4(a)(6)(B). Under Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(i), Mr. Grady must have 

requested the extension of time on or before April 11, 2016, but he ultimately did not 

do so until August 24, 2016. And under Rule 4(a)(6)(B), Mr. Grady must have 

requested reopening the time for appeal on or before August 9, 2016, which is 180 

Case 3:13-cv-02479-BAS-MDD Document 55 Filed 09/07/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
 – 4 – 13cv2479 

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 

days after entry of judgment. If the Court uses the later date under Rule 4(a)(6)(B)—

14 days after Mr. Grady received notice of entry of judgment—he would have been 

allowed to request reopening the time for appeal by August 30, 2016, but the rule 

explicitly requires that the Court use the earlier of the two dates. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 77(d)(2) explicitly states that “[l]ack of notice 

of the entry [of judgment] does not affect the time for appeal or relieve—or authorize 

the court to relieve—a party for failing to appeal within the time allowed, except as 

allowed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a).” Because Mr. Grady 

unfortunately cannot satisfy the timing requirements under either Rule 4(a)(5) or 

Rule 4(a)(6), the Court DENIES his request for an extension of time to file a notice 

of appeal. That said, Mr. Grady should note that Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

4(a)(4)(A) states that if a party timely files in the district court a motion to alter or 

amend the judgment under Rule 59, “the time to file an appeal runs for all parties 

from the entry of the order disposing of the last such remaining motion[.]” 

III. Conclusion & Order 

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 

PART Mr. Grady’s motion. Mr. Grady may file a motion for reconsideration within 

30 days of receiving this order, but the Court cannot grant any relief regarding his 

request for an extension of time to file a potential notice of appeal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 6, 2016 

 

Case 3:13-cv-02479-BAS-MDD Document 55 Filed 09/07/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4