Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02574/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-02574-0/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

1 After a review of Plaintiff’s July 25, 2006 filing titled “Notice of Appeal,”this Court notes that no

formal motion for extension of any time nor any other document requesting an extension of time was included

with his filing. Although the requirements under Rule 4 are jurisdictional and strictly construed, see Malone v.

Avenenti, 850 F.2d 569, 572 (9th Cir. 1988), pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s Order this Court hereby

construes Plaintiff’s “Notice of Appeal” as including a request for extension of time to file his late notice of

appeal.

04cv2574

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIALLO E. UHURU,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALAN KHAN, ET AL.

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04CV2574 JAH (WMc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO FILE A NOTICE OF

APPEAL

[Doc. No. 14]

On January 24, 2006, this Court dismissed without prejudice the instant matter for

failure to serve his complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m). Doc. No. 11. On

May 11, 2006, this Court received a status inquiry from Plaintiff Diallo E. Uhuru (“Plaintiff”),

which the Court rejected because his case was previously dismissed. Doc. No. 13. Plaintiff

subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal, dated May 25, 2006, which was received by this Court

on July 25, 2006, appealing the dismissal of his case. 

On October 13, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found after a review of the

record that the July 25, 2006 motion “included a timely motion for extension of time to appeal

pursuant to Fed. R. App. P 4(a)(6),”1 and accordingly remanded the instant matter to this

Court for the “limited purpose of allowing [this Court] to rule on appellant’s July 25, 2006

Case 3:04-cv-02574-JAH-WMC Document 18 Filed 11/08/06 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 04cv2574

motion.” Doc. No. 17 at 1.

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) allows a district court to reopen the time

to file an appeal 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 7 days after the moving party receives notice under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 77(d) of the entry, whichever is earlier; and (C) the court finds that no party would be prejudiced.

Upon review of the record, this Court finds that Plaintiff has not met the requirements under

Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a)(6). Plaintiff received this Court’s notice of the termination of his case

on May 16, 2006. See Ntc. Appeal at 2. Plaintiff, however, did not file his notice of appeal and

request for extension of time with this Court until May 25, 2006. Plaintiff, therefore, did not

file his request within the seven days required under Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a)(6)(B). Because

of the jurisdictional nature of Rule 4(a), this Court lacks the authority to allow Plaintiff to

reopen the time for filing his notice of appeal. See Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U.S.

312, 315 (1988); Vahan v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 102, 103 (9th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, for the

reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for extension of time

to file his notice of appeal under Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a)(6) is DENIED.

DATED: November 8, 2006

HON. JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

cc: Magistrate Judge McCurine All Counsel of Record

Case 3:04-cv-02574-JAH-WMC Document 18 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 2