Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06227/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06227-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THEODORE MICHAEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

RAYMOND ANDREWS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 02 6227 LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REOPEN

TIME FOR FILING APPEAL (Doc. 93.) 

 Theodore Michael (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties

have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

On February 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 59.) The

Motion was denied by this Court on August 2, 2005. (Doc. 87.) Defendants filed their Motion

for Summary Judgment on February 18, 2005. (Doc. 66.) Defendants filed an Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on March 10, 2005. On April 27, 2005, Plaintiff filed

a Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 85.) 

Plaintiff filed his Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on May 18, 2005. 

Case 1:02-cv-06227-NEW Document 94 Filed 06/13/06 Page 1 of 2
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

The Court issued an Order granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment on August 2,

2005. Judgment was entered on August 22, 2005. 

On June 9, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion to reopen the time for filing an appeal. Plaintiff

states that he did not receive notice of the entry of judgment until May 22, 2006. Plaintiff states

that mail was returned to the Court but that he had not transferred to another institution until

October 5, 2005. 

Pursuant to Rule 4(a)(6) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Court may

reopen the time to file an appeal for a period of 14 days, but only if all of the following

conditions are met: 

(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 7

days after the moving party receives notice under the 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).

In this case, Plaintiff states that he did not receive notice of the Judgment and Order until

May 22, 2006. (Motion at 1.) However, Plaintiff did not submit the instant motion until June 9,

2006, well beyond 180 days of judgment (making the deadline February 18, 2006) and beyond 7

days of when he received notice on May 22, 2006 (a deadline of May 29, 2006.) As Plaintiff has

failed to meet the condition required in subsection (B), the request to reopen the time for filing an

appeal is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06227-NEW Document 94 Filed 06/13/06 Page 2 of 2