Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03891/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03891-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.05\Williams891eotnoa.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARRELL WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

 vs.

WARDEN TOM L. CAREY, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-3891 RMW (PR)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Petitioner, a California prisoner, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 5, 2010, the court denied petitioner’s petition on the merits and

entered judgment. In that same order, pursuant to the federal rules, the court denied a certificate

of appealability. See Rule 11(a), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254

(effective December 1, 2009).

On February 23, 2010, petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal (“NOA”). 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). 

Here, petitioner’s NOA is untimely. However, petitioner’s NOA avers that he did not receive

the court’s January 5, 2010 judgment until February 16, 2010. Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 4(a)(5) allows a party to move for an extension of time if the party so moves within

thirty days of the expiration of the time to file the notice and shows excusable neglect or good

*E-FILED - 3/24/10*

Case 5:05-cv-03891-RMW Document 45 Filed 03/24/10 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

Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\HC.05\Williams891eotnoa.wpd 2

cause. Good cause being shown, the court construes petitioner’s NOA as a motion for extension

of time to file an NOA. So construed, petitioner’s motion is GRANTED. Petitioner’s NOA is

deemed timely filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _______________ 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

3/23/10

Case 5:05-cv-03891-RMW Document 45 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 2