Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01600/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-01600-0/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

1

 Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the “mailbox rule” which provides for constructive filing

of court documents as of the date they are submitted to the prison authorities for mailing to the court.

Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574-75 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Fed.R.App.P. 4(c) (“If an inmate

confined in an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil or criminal case, the notice is timely

if it is deposited in the institution’s internal mail system on or before the last day for filing.”) According

to the proof of service and signature pages of Petitioner’s Notice of Appeal and Motion to Broaden the

Certificate of Appealabiity, those documents were mailed to the Court on Tuesday, April 28, 2009. A

timely notice of appeal in this action must have been filed “within 30 days after” the March 25, 2009

entry of judgment, on or before Friday, April 24, 2009. See Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(A). Thus, even using

April 28, 2009, as the constructive filing date of the Notice of Appeal, it was several days late.

-1- 07cv1600

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO GARCIA,

Petitioner,

Civil No. 07cv1600-BTM (RBB) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

vs.

JIMMY WALKER, Warden,

Respondent.

On March 25, 2009, this Court entered judgment denying Petitioner’s First Amended

Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and issued a limited Certificate of Appealability. (Doc. Nos.

28-29.) On May 1, 2009, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal and Motion to Broaden the

Certificate of Appealability, which were transmitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

(Doc. No. 30.) On June 2, 2009, the Ninth Circuit found that “the May 1, 2009, notice of appeal

was not filed or delivered to prison officials within 30 days from entry of the March 25, 2009

judgment,” and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.1

 (Doc. No. 33.) 

Case 3:07-cv-01600-BTM-RBB Document 43 Filed 05/21/10 Page 1 of 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

-2- 07cv1600

On June 10, 2009, Petitioner filed a Second Notice of Appeal in this Court, which was

transmitted to the Ninth Circuit and assigned a separate case number. (Doc. Nos. 34-35.) On

July 8, 2009, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the second appeal as duplicative of Petitioner’s first

appeal. (Doc. No. 37.) The Ninth Circuit construed Petitioner’s second notice of appeal as a

motion for reconsideration of its June 2, 2009 Order dismissing the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction, and denied the motion for reconsideration on August 13, 2009. (Doc. No. 38.) The

Ninth Circuit at that time also indicated that: “No further filings shall be accepted in this closed

case.” (Id.)

Presently before the Court is a Motion for Relief from Judgment pursuant to Federal Civil

Rule 60(b) filed by Petitioner. (Doc. No. 42.) He contends that his notice of appeal was timely

filed, that the Ninth Circuit erred in finding it was untimely, and that his only recourse is in this

Court. (Id. at p. 16.) To the extent Petitioner contends that this Court can determine whether

his appeal was timely, he is wrong. Such a question is exclusively within the province of the

Ninth Circuit. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 940 (9th Cir. 2007) (“We, not the

district court, are the ultimate arbiters of compliance with the rules governing the appellate

process.”) 

Nevertheless, there are very limited circumstances in which the district court may vacate

its prior judgment pursuant to a Rule 60(b) motion filed after the time to appeal has expired, and

re-enter judgment to permit the filing of a timely notice of appeal. Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d

456, 458-59 (9th Cir. 1983) (en banc). Relief under Watt is only available where the petitioner

can demonstrate due diligence and excusable neglect, and then only where the excusable neglect

arose after expiration of the time to file a motion for extension of time to file an appeal under

Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5); Watt, 722 F.2d at 459. However, where, as here, “[w]hen relief from

judgment is sought after the thirty day period allowed by Rule 4(a)(5), the applicability of the

Rule 60(b)(1) excusable neglect standard may be questioned as being counter to the policy

indicated by Rule 4(a)(5)’s time frame.” Watt, 722 F.2d at 459. In addition, the Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure were amended in 1991 to add Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6), explicitly setting

time limits for filing a motion in the district court to reopen the time to appeal when a party did

Case 3:07-cv-01600-BTM-RBB Document 43 Filed 05/21/10 Page 2 of 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

-3- 07cv1600

not receive notice of entry of judgment. That Rule provides that the petitioner must have failed

to receive notice of entry of judgment within 21 days after entry of judgment, and that the

motion must be filed within 180 days after entry of judgement or within 14 days after the moving

party receives notice of entry of judgment. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6). 

There is no basis for relief under Rule 4(a)(6) because final judgment in this action was

entered over a year ago, and Petitioner received notice of entry of that judgment sometime before

he filed his Notice of Appeal over a year ago. See In re Stein, 197 F.3d 421, 426 (9th Cir. 2000)

(“Once the 180-day period [in Rule 4(a)(6)] has expired, a district court cannot rely on the onetime practice of vacating the judgment and reentering the same judgment in order to create a new

appeal period.”) Neither is there a basis for relief under Rule 60(b) because Petitioner has made

no effort to demonstrate diligence or excusable neglect in his Rule 60(b) motion, which in any

case was filed over a year after entry of judgment. Watt, 722 F.2d at 459 (holding that a Rule

60(b) “motion must be made within a reasonable time not to exceed one year in certain

categories, including that of 60(b)(1)’s excusable neglect” provision).

Petitioner’s Motion for Relief from Judgment is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 21, 2010

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

CC: ALL PARTIES

Case 3:07-cv-01600-BTM-RBB Document 43 Filed 05/21/10 Page 3 of 3