Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01176/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01176-3/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 

Eddie Dunbar,

Petitioner, 2:04-cv-1176-GEB-PAN-P

vs. Order

A. K. Scribner, et al.,

Respondents.

-oOoOn August 16, 2005, the court dismissed petitioner’s

application for a writ of habeas corpus and the Clerk of the

Court entered judgment. On October 13, 2005, petitioner filed a

request for additional time to file a notice of appeal. 

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 2:04-cv-01176-GEB-PAN Document 28 Filed 11/22/05 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 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. 4(a)(5).

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). A party

who seeks an extension within 30 days after time to appeal

expired 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.

Since judgment was entered August 16, 2005, and no party

filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, petitioner had

until September 15, 2005, to file a notice of appeal and until

October 15, 2005, to move for an extension of time to file a

notice of appeal.

Petitioner’s October 13, 2005, request is timely. 

Petitioner asserts he could not timely appeal because he

underwent lumbar surgery at the beginning of August and was

Case 2:04-cv-01176-GEB-PAN Document 28 Filed 11/22/05 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

placed in the California State Prison Corcoran Acute Care

Hospital. He did not receive the August 16,2005, order until

September 13, 2005.

I find petitioner has shown good cause.

Accordingly, petitioner’s October 13, 2005, request is

granted.

So ordered.

Dated: November 22, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-01176-GEB-PAN Document 28 Filed 11/22/05 Page 3 of 3