Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01834/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01834-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

OWEN LINO,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 09 CV 1834 MMA (PCL)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY;

[Doc. No. 137]

DENYING REQUEST TO REOPEN

THE TIME FOR APPEAL;

[Doc. No. 136]

DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

[Doc. No. 138]

vs.

L. SMALL et al.,

Defendants.

On August 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed this action against several defendants alleging

violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 13, 2012, the parties reached an

amicable settlement of Plaintiff’s claims and recorded the terms of their agreement. See Doc. No.

114. At the parties’ joint request, the Court dismissed the entire action with prejudice on April 26,

2012. See Doc. No. 123. On July 5, 2012, Plaintiff moved for release from the settlement

agreement. See Doc. No. 128. The Court denied the motion on August 24, 2012. See Doc. No.

132. Thereafter, Plaintiff submitted a motion for reconsideration which the Court did not accept

for filing due to untimeliness. See Doc. No. 133. 

- 1 - 09cv1834

Case 3:09-cv-01834-MMA-PCL Document 141 Filed 11/13/12 Page 1 of 4
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

Plaintiff now appeals the Court’s August 24, 2012 Order denying release from the

settlement agreement and the Court’s September 28, 2012 Order rejecting his motion for

reconsideration as discrepant. See Doc. Nos. 134, 135. Plaintiff also requests the Court issue a

certificate of appealability, reopen the time for appeal, and grant leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 

See Doc. Nos. 136-138. 

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

As an initial matter, Plaintiff does not need a certificate of appealability to pursue his

appeal. The requirement for a certificate of appealability only applies to claims for habeas corpus

relief arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 or § 2255. See FED. R. APP. P. 22(b); see also Dalluge v.

U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. C11-5037RBL, 2011 WL 1675407, at *1 (W.D. Wash. May 4, 2011)

(“As this case was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, there is no requirement for a certificate

of appealability.”); Jenkins v. Caplan, No. C 02-5603 RMW (PR), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89923,

2010 WL 3057410, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2010) (“[A] Certificate of Appealability is

inapplicable to a § 1983 action.”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s request

for a certificate of appealability.

REQUEST TO REOPEN THE TIME FOR APPEAL

Plaintiff’s notice of appeal is considered “filed” as of October 29, 2012, the date he appears

to have deposited it with the prison’s internal mail system. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(c)(1). Rule 4(a)

of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a notice of appeal “be filed with the

district clerk within 30 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered.” FED. R. APP. P.

4(a)(1). As noted above, Plaintiff appeals two orders of the Court, issued on August 24 and

September 28 respectively. To the extent either order is appealable, Plaintiff’s notice of appeal is

timely as to the Court’s September 28 Order, but is untimely as to the August 24 Order. Plaintiff

implicitly recognizes this problem by requesting the Court to reopen the time for him to file an

appeal. 

Relief from the deadline for filing the notice of appeal may be obtained in the district court

under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) by way of a motion to reopen the time to file an

appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the district court may reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of

- 2 - 09cv1834

Case 3:09-cv-01834-MMA-PCL Document 141 Filed 11/13/12 Page 2 of 4
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

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; and 

(C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced.

See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(6). “The procedures set forth in [R]ule 4 are strictly construed; there is no

exception for prisoners proceeding pro se or for habeas corpus actions.” Malone v. Avenenti, 850

F.2d 569, 572 (9th Cir. 1988). 

Plaintiff has not established that he failed to receive notice of the entry of the August 24

Order by September 12, 2012, within 21 days of entry. See FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(6)(A). A review

of the case docket indicates that Plaintiff was served with a copy of the Court’s Order via U.S.

mail to the correct mailing address on the same date the Court issued the order. See Doc. No. 132. 

Furthermore, Plaintiff had drafted his motion for reconsideration of the Court’s August 24 Order

and deposited it with the prison’s internal mailing system by September 12, 2012, according to the

metered postage stamp on the mailing envelope. See Doc. No. 133. Thus, it appears that Plaintiff

received notice of entry of the Court’s August 24 Order within 21 days after its entry. All of the

three conditions under Rule 4(a)(6), as listed above, must be satisfied, or the district court may not

reopen the time to file an appeal. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request. 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff also moves for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Pursuant to the Federal Rules

of Appellate Procedure,

A party who was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in the district-court

action . . . may proceed on appeal in forma pauperis without further authorization,

unless:

(A) the district court - before or after the notice of appeal is filed - certifies that

the appeal is not taken in good faith or finds that the party is not otherwise

entitled to proceed in forma pauperis and states in writing its reasons for the

certification or finding;

or

- 3 - 09cv1834

Case 3:09-cv-01834-MMA-PCL Document 141 Filed 11/13/12 Page 3 of 4
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

(B) a statute provides otherwise.

FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3). Because Plaintiff was proceeding in forma pauperis in this action,

Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal unless the Court finds his appeal is not

taken in good faith or finds that he is not otherwise entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. “An

appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies in writing that it is not taken

in good faith.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). “In the absence of some evident improper motive, the

applicant’s good faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous.” 

Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674 (1958). An action is frivolous “where it lacks an arguable

basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989). 

Here, there are no valid grounds on which an appeal can be based. Consequently, the

Court certifies that any appeal taken from the Court’s August 24 and September 28 Orders will not

be taken in good faith and is therefore frivolous. FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(3)(A); Ellis v. United

States, 356 U.S. 674, 674-75 (1958); Hooker v. American Airlines, 302 F.3d 1091, 1092 (9th Cir.

2002). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. 

The Clerk of Court shall notify the Court of Appeals of this order. See FED. R. APP. P.

24(a)(4). Plaintiff may file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal in the Court

of Appeals within thirty days after service of notice of this Order. See FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5).

Any such motion “must include a copy of the affidavit filed in the district court and the district

court’s statement of reasons for its action.” Id.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 13, 2012

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 4 - 09cv1834

Case 3:09-cv-01834-MMA-PCL Document 141 Filed 11/13/12 Page 4 of 4