Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00272/USCOURTS-caed-2_00-cv-00272-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROY T. MARSHALL,

Petitioner, 2:00-cv-0272-GEB-JFM-P

vs.

A. C. NEWLAND, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2254. On June 9, 2005, this court issued an order

denying petitioner’s motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) for

relief from the judgment entered in this action on March 18,

2003, denying petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas

corpus. On July 22, 2005, petitioner filed a notice of appeal

from the June 9, 2005 order and a motion for a certificate of

appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).

Case 2:00-cv-00272-GEB -JFM Document 43 Filed 08/26/05 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

1 Petitioner initially filed a Rule 60(b) motion on

September 17, 2004. The motion was denied without prejudice by

order filed December 21, 2004, due to petitioner’s failure to

serve the motion on counsel for respondents.

2 Petitioner’s notice of appeal and motion for certificate

of appealability were delivered to prison officials for mailing

to this court on July 14, 2005. (See Proof of Service appended

to Motion for Issuance of a Certificate of Appealability, filed

July 22, 2005.) The notice of appeal is therefore deemed filed

on July 14, 2005. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). 

2

The timely filing of a notice of appeal is a

jurisdictional requirement. Scott v. Younger, 739 F.2d 1464,

1466 (9th Cir. 1984). In the instant case, judgment was entered

on March 18, 2003. Petitioner did not file a notice of appeal

from the judgment, nor did he file the instant Rule 60(b) motion

until January 10, 2005.1 In accordance with Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(4)(A)(vi) and 4(a)(B)(ii), had petitioner filed his Rule

60(b) motion within ten days from entry of judgment herein, he

would have had thirty days from the date of disposition of the

Rule 60(b) motion to file a notice of appeal. However,

petitioner’s Rule 60(b) motion was not filed within that ten day

period. Even if petitioner had timely filed his Rule 60(b)

motion, the instant notice of appeal was filed more than thirty

days after disposition of said motion.2 Finally, petitioner has

not made the showing necessary to extend or reopen the time for

filing a notice of appeal from the judgment in this action. Cf.

Fed. R. App. 4(a)(5),(6). Specifically, the record reflects that

petitioner was reserved with, inter alia, the order denying his

habeas corpus petition and the judgment thereon on April 9, 2003,

Case 2:00-cv-00272-GEB -JFM Document 43 Filed 08/26/05 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

3

and he made no further attempt to seek relief from the judgment

until September 2004, almost a year and a half later, well after

expiration of the time limits set in Fed. R. App. 4(a)(5) and (6)

to reopen or extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit has held that the issuance of a certificate of probable

cause cannot vest the court of appeals with jurisdiction if

jurisdiction is not proper in that court. Hayward v. Britt, 572

F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1978). The rationale of Hayward

applies with equal force to a certificate of appealability. 

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion for a certificate of

appealability will be denied.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. Petitioner’s July 22, 2005 motion for a certificate

of appealability is denied; and

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to process

petitioner’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the

Ninth Circuit.

Dated: August 29, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:00-cv-00272-GEB -JFM Document 43 Filed 08/26/05 Page 3 of 3