Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03777/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03777-13/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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEFFREY ANTHONY FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

G. D. LEWIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 13-cv-03777-YGR (PR)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO APPEAL THE COURT’S 

OCTOBER 19, 2018 DENIAL OF HIS 

POST-JUDGMENT MOTION

This federal civil rights action, now closed, was filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a 

pro se state prisoner. Summary judgment was granted in favor of Defendants as to all remaining 

federal claims,1and judgment was entered on March 27, 2017. Dkt. 64. On May 30, 2017, 

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal as to the Court’s March 27, 2017 judgment. Dkt. 67.

On December 27, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal for 

failure to prosecute. Dkt. 77. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed in the Ninth Circuit a motion for 

reconsideration as to that Court’s dismissal of his appeal.

Plaintiff also filed a motion for relief from this Court’s March 27, 2017 judgment under 

Rules 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that motion was deemed 

as filed on April 25, 2018. Dkt. 78. 

On June 19, 2018, the Ninth Circuit granted Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, vacated 

its December 27, 2017 Order, and reinstated the appeal. Dkt. 83.

In its Order dated October 19, 2018, the Court considered Plaintiff’s motion for relief from 

judgment and determined that to the extent that his motion sought relief under Rule 60(b)(1), the 

motion was denied as untimely because the date it was deemed filed—April 25, 2018—was more 

than a year after entry of judgment on March 27, 2017. Dkt. 88 at 2 (citing Nevitt v. U.S., 886 

F.2d 1187, 1188 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he one-year limitation period is not tolled during an 

appeal.”)). The Court also determined that Plaintiff did not present the type of extraordinary 

 

1 The Court also remanded all remaining state law claims to the Del Norte County Superior 

Court. See Dkt. 64.

Case 4:13-cv-03777-YGR Document 95 Filed 05/07/19 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

circumstances justifying relief under Rule 60(b)(6) because his argument for vacating the March 

27, 2017 Order could only be construed as his mere dissatisfaction with that Order, which was not 

an adequate ground for relief. Id. at 2-3 (citing Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp. v. Dunnahoo, 

637 F.2d 1338, 1341 (9th Cir. 1981)). Therefore, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for relief 

from its March 27, 2017 judgment upon concluding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief under 

the aforementioned subsections of Rule 60(b). Id.

On December 16, 2018,

2 Plaintiff filed the present motion (under Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)) to extend the time to appeal the Court’s October 19, 2018 postjudgment order (denying his motion for relief from judgment). Dkt. 90. He claims he had just 

transferred to a new prison when the Court issued its October 19, 2018 post-judgment order, and 

he requests additional time to access “photo copying services” at his new prison. Id. at 3. 

On December 26, 2018, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal as to the Court’s October 19, 2018 

post-judgment order. Dkt. 91. The Court deems the filing date of the notice of appeal to be on 

December 16, 2018 because that notice was served on prison officials for mailing on December 

16, 2018. See Dkt. 91-1 at 2.

In an Order dated January 23, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals noted as follows:

A review of the record demonstrates that the December 26, 2018 

notice of appeal was not filed or delivered to prison officials within 

30 days after entry of the October 19, 2018 post-judgment order. 

However, on December 26, 2018, appellant filed a motion for an 

extension of time to appeal pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 4(a)(5). The district court has not ruled on that motion. 

Accordingly, this appeal is remanded to the district court for the 

limited purpose of allowing that court to rule on appellant’s December 

26, 2018 motion. The district court is requested to serve a copy of its 

decision on this court at its earliest convenience. Briefing is stayed 

pending further order of this court.

Dkt. 94 at 1.

 

2 Plaintiff’s motion was served to prison officials for mailing on December 16, 2018, and it

was stamped “filed” by the Clerk of the Court on December 26, 2018. See Dkt. 90-1 at 2. As a 

pro se prisoner, Plaintiff receives the benefit of the prisoner mailbox rule, which deems most 

documents filed when the prisoner gives them to prison officials to mail to the court. See Stillman 

v. LaMarque, 319 F.3d 1199, 1201 (9th Cir. 2003). Because the motion was served on prison 

officials for mailing on December 16, 2018, the Court will deem the motion filed as of that date. 

Case 4:13-cv-03777-YGR Document 95 Filed 05/07/19 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that a notice of appeal “be 

filed with the clerk of the district court within 30 days after the entry of the judgment or order 

appealed from.” Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). Relief from the deadline for a timely notice of appeal 

may be obtained by a motion in the district court under Rule 4(a)(5), which allows for an 

extension of time if the party requests it within thirty days of the expiration of the time to file the 

notice and shows excusable neglect or good cause. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). 

Here, Plaintiff’s motion to extend the time to appeal was deemed filed on December 16, 

2018, which is within thirty days of the expiration of the time to file his notice of appeal 

(November 19, 2018), and the request shows good cause. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff an extension of time to appeal the October 19, 2018 post-judgment order nunc pro tunc to 

December 16, 2018, the date his notice of appeal were deemed filed.

The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to the Ninth Circuit.

This Order terminates Docket No. 90.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

May 7, 2019

Case 4:13-cv-03777-YGR Document 95 Filed 05/07/19 Page 3 of 3