Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06456/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-06456-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL YARBOROUGH, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:02-CV-6456 OWW WMW P

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR RELIEF UNDER

FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(6) 

I. INTRODUCTION

Manuel Antonio Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 in 2002. Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed without

prejudice on September 20, 2004. Doc. 21. His motion for

reconsideration of the dismissal was denied on March 4, 2005,

along with his motions for appointment of counsel pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1915(e)(1) and for a certificate of appealability pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. Id. Plaintiff has appealed these rulings. 

See Doc. 24 (Notice of Appeal), filed Feb. 7, 2005. The United

Case 1:02-cv-06456-OWW -WMW Document 37 Filed 05/19/05 Page 1 of 7
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

States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remanded the case

to the district court for the limited purpose of ruling on

plaintiff’s request for relief under Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 4(a)(6), contained within his notice of appeal. 

II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed his original complaint on November 12, 2002,

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against officials employed

by the Department of Corrections at the California Correctional

Institution (“CCI”) at Tehachapi. Doc. 1. Plaintiff’s claims

arise out of the refusal of a classification committee at CCI to

place Plaintiff in a sensitive needs yard. Id.

Plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed on March 26, 2004. Doc.

15, “March 26, 2004, Dismissal Order.” Plaintiff was granted

thirty days from the date of service of the March 26, 2004,

Dismissal Order to file an amended complaint. Id. at 5.

The Certificate of Service for the March 26, 2004, Dismissal

Order states that Plaintiff was served with the order via U.S.

Mail on March 29, 2004, at the following address:

Manuel Antonio Gonzalez

SVSP3

Salinas Valley State Prison

PO Box 1060

Soledad, CA 93960

This was the last address provided by Plaintiff. Doc. 14, filed

Oct. 15, 2003). 

The March 26, 2004, Dismissal Order was “returned to sender”

on April 9, 2004. Doc. 16. This order was subsequently reserved on Plaintiff on May 26, 2004, via U.S. Mail at the

following address:

Case 1:02-cv-06456-OWW -WMW Document 37 Filed 05/19/05 Page 2 of 7
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 On May 2, 2004, Plaintiff was also served with an Order

referring this case to a different United States Magistrate

Judge. Doc. 17. This document was returned to sender because it

did not bear a “CDC Number.” Doc 18, entered May 26, 2004. The

document was re-served on plaintiff on May 29, 2004, and was not

returned to sender. 

3

Manuel Antonio Gonzalez

Salinas Valley State Prison

T-42888

PO Box 1060

Soledad, CA 93960

Id. at Certificate of Service. No further “return to sender”

notices regarding the March 26, 2004, Dismissal Order, appear in

the file. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.

Two and one-half months later, on August 10, 2004, United

States Magistrate Judge Wunderlich filed Findings and

Recommendations (“F&Rs”), recommending the action be dismissed

for failure to comply with a court order to amend the complaint. 

Doc. 19, at 3. The F&Rs allowed the parties thirty days from

service to file written objections. Id. Plaintiff was served

with the F&Rs via U.S. Mail on August 11, 2004, at the following

address:

Manuel Antonio Gonzalez

Salinas Valley State Prison

T-42888

PO Box 1060

Soledad, CA 93960

Id. at Certificate of Service. No “change of address” or “return

to sender” notices for the August 11, 2004 F&Rs appear in the

file. Neither Plaintiff nor any other party filed objections to

these F&Rs.1 

On September 17, 2004, the district court filed an Order

adopting the F&Rs in full and dismissing the action without

Case 1:02-cv-06456-OWW -WMW Document 37 Filed 05/19/05 Page 3 of 7
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

4

prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Doc. 20,

“September 17, 2004, Dismissal Order,” at 2; see also Doc. 21,

Judgment Dismissing Action, filed September 20, 2004. Plaintiff

was served with this order and the respective judgment closing

the case, on September 20, 2004, via U.S. Mail at Plaintiff’s

same last-known address to which the Findings and Recommendations

were sent. Id. at Certificates of Service. There is no evidence

that either the September 17, 2004 order or the September 20,

2004 judgment were returned to sender. 

Four months later, on January 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed a

Motion to Appoint Counsel and a Motion for Reconsideration. 

Docs. 23, 24. The motion for reconsideration alleged that prison

officials were interfering with the delivery of his legal mail. 

In this motion, Plaintiff stated, “I received my legal property

on 12-21-04,” but Plaintiff did not clarify precisely what

documents were included in this “legal property.” Doc. 23 at 4. 

Plaintiff also expressed confusion as to why his case had been

dismissed: “Plaintiff has no idea if this [] case was dismissed

for failure to prosecute?” Id.

On February 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for

certificate of appealability, Doc. 24, and a notice of appeal,

Doc. 25. Plaintiff asserts in his motion for certificate of

appealability that he was not aware that the case had been closed

until January 25, 2005 when he was informed that the case had

been dismissed with prejudice. Doc. 25. at 1. 

On March 4, 2005, the district court denied Plaintiff’s

motion to appoint counsel, motion for reconsideration, and motion

for certificate of appealability. Doc. 30. There is no

Case 1:02-cv-06456-OWW -WMW Document 37 Filed 05/19/05 Page 4 of 7
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

5

indication in the file that this order was returned to sender.

Subsequent to the district court’s March 4, 2005 order,

Magistrate Judge Wunderlich issued an administrative order

denying Plaintiff’s motion for the appointment of counsel. This

motion was served upon defendant, but was returned to sender

because the served copies did not bear a “booking number.” Doc.

32, filed Mar. 22, 2005.

On April 11, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

remanded the case to the district court for the limited purpose

of ruling on Gonzalez’s request for relief under Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) to reopen the time to file his

appeal. Doc. 35. The Ninth Circuit suggested that this motion

under rule 4(a)(6) had been timely filed. Id. at 1. 

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

Petitioner’s February 7, 2005 notice of appeal arguably

contained within it a request for relief under Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) to reopen the time to file his

appeal. Rule 4(a)(6) allows a district court to reopen the time

for appeal provided the following conditions are satisfied: 

(A) the motion is filed within 180 days after the

judgment or order is entered or within 7 days

after the moving party receives notice of the

entry, whichever is earlier;

(B) the court finds that the moving party was entitled

to notice of the entry of the judgment or order

sought to be appealed but did not receive the

notice from the district court or any party within

21 days after entry; and

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

Case 1:02-cv-06456-OWW -WMW Document 37 Filed 05/19/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

A. Timeliness of Request for Relief under Rule 4(a)(6)

Under Rule 4(a)(6)(A) Plaintiff must file for relief under

Rule 4(a)(6) within 7 days after receiving notice of the entry of

the judgment or order being appealed. The Court of Appeals

suggests that Plaintiff’s motion under this provision was timely

filed. Doc. 35 at 1. However, this determination is for the

district court to make in the first instance. 

The district court dismissed this action and closed the case

on September 17, 2004. Doc. 20. This order which contained a

judgment of dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute,

id. at 2., was served upon Plaintiff and was not returned to

sender. On September 20, 2004, the clerk’s office issued a onepage judgment also prescribing that the case had been dismissed

without prejudice. Doc. 21. 

Although Plaintiff’s February 7, 2005 motion for a

certificate of appealability asserts that he did not receive

notice that his case had been dismissed until January 2005, see

Doc. 25, this assertion is plainly contradicted by assertions

made by Plaintiff in his the “motion for reconsideration” filed

on January 20, 2005. In the motion for reconsideration,

plaintiff claims to have received his legal property on December

21, 2004 and complains that he did had “no idea if this [] case

was dismissed for failure to prosecute.” Clearly, in order to

make such assertions, plaintiff must have been aware that his

case had been dismissed. Accordingly, Plaintiff either became

aware of the dismissal in September when the order and judgment

were twice served on him, or, at the very latest, he became aware

of the dismissal when he “received his legal property on December

Case 1:02-cv-06456-OWW -WMW Document 37 Filed 05/19/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

21, 2004.” His subsequent assertion that he first became aware

of the dismissal on January 25, 2004 cannot be credited. 

Giving Plaintiff the benefit of the doubt by assuming he

received notice of the dismissal on December 21, 2004, his motion

for relief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6),

filed on February 7, 2005, was not timely. The seven day filing

period set forth in Rule 4(a)(6)(a) would have begun to run on

December 21, 2004, when he allegedly received notice of the

judgment. This time period would have expired on December 30,

2004, more than a month before Plaintiff filed his February 7,

2004 notice of appeal. Because his request for relief under Rule

4(a)(6) was untimely, the district court cannot extend the time

for him to file an appeal. 

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff’s request for

relief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) is

DENIED as untimely.

SO ORDERED

Dated: May 18, 2005 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

 

 Oliver W. Wanger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-06456-OWW -WMW Document 37 Filed 05/19/05 Page 7 of 7