Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01816/USCOURTS-caed-2_98-cv-01816-5/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

United States District Court

Eastern District of California 

Brian Williams,

Petitioner, No. Civ. S 98-1816 FCD PAN P

vs. Order

Jim Hamlet, Warden,

Respondents.

-oOoSeptember 6, 2005, petitioner filed a request for additional

time to file a notice of appeal of this court’s August 8, 2005,

order and judgment denying his petition for a writ of habeas

corpus.

A timely notice of appeal is a jurisdictional prerequisite

to appealing a judgment of the district court. Fed. R. App. P.

4(a); Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257,

264 (1978). Ordinarily, a party in a civil case must file the

notice within 30 days after judgment is entered. Fed. R. 

Case 2:98-cv-01816-FCD-EFB Document 99 Filed 10/06/05 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

2

App. P. 4(a). If a party files a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 60 within ten days of the entry of judgment, time to file a

notice of appeal runs from entry of the order disposing of the

motion. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(vi). The district court may

extend the time if a party so moves within 30 days of the time

the notice must be filed and the party shows either excusable

neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 5(A). 

A court may find excusable neglect upon a showing a party

failed timely to file because of careless omission to act. See

Pincay v. Andrews, 351 F.3d 947, 950 (9th Cir. 2003). Since

petitioner sought an extension before time to appeal expired, he

cannot satisfy this standard. See State of Oregon v. Champion

International Corp., 680 F.2d 1300, 1301 (per curiam) (noting the

good cause language was added to the rule because the excusable

neglect standard does not fit the situation in which an appellant

seeks an extension before the expiration of the initial appeal

period); see also Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) advisory committee

note.

August 22, 2005, petitioner filed a motion pursuant to Rule

60(b) and the court denied that motion September 1, 2005. 

Accordingly, petitioner must file a notice of appeal no later

than October 4, 2005.

September 6, 2005, petitioner submitted a five-page

memorandum with citations to legal authorities explaining he

cannot timely file a notice of appeal because his access to the

law library has been limited. He does not explain how he could

Case 2:98-cv-01816-FCD-EFB Document 99 Filed 10/06/05 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

draft such a request but not file a notice of appeal and so fails

to show good cause.

Accordingly, petitioner’s September 6, 2005, request is

denied.

So ordered.

DATED:October 5, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:98-cv-01816-FCD-EFB Document 99 Filed 10/06/05 Page 3 of 3