Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_15-cr-00050/USCOURTS-akd-3_15-cr-00050-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Grant Martin Matthisen
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

GRANT MARTIN MATTHISEN,

Defendant.

 Case No. 3:15-cr-00050-SLG

ORDER PERMITTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

On May 20, 2015, Grant Martin Matthisen, representing himself, filed a 

Notice of Removal of his state criminal proceedings to this Court.

1 On June 1, 

2015, the Court remanded the case to the state court as required by 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1455(b)(4).

2 The Court denied reconsideration of the remand on June 23, 2015, 

and Mr. Matthisen filed a Notice of Appeal on July 23, 2015.

3 

On August 7, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an 

Order providing as follows:

Because the notice of appeal was filed more than 14 days after entry 

of the June 23, 2015 order, it was not timely under Federal Rule of 

Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A). The notice of appeal was, however, 

filed within 30 days after the expiration of the time to file the notice of 

 1 Docket 1.

2 Docket 2. 

3 Dockets 10, 11; see also Docket 7 at 1 (Order granting Mr. Matthisen’s motion for an 

extension of time to file a motion to reconsider the Order of Summary Remand: “The 

Order of Summary Remand to State Court remains in full force and effect at this time and 

unless and until reconsidered by later order of this Court. As a result, this order granting 

an extension does not stay any proceedings that may be underway in Alaska Superior 

Court No. 3AN-14-03122 CR.”).

Case 3:15-cr-00050-SLG Document 16 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 3
3:15-cr-00050-SLG, State of Alaska v. Matthisen

Order Permitting Request for Extension of Time

Page 2 of 3

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Accordingly, pursuant to circuit 

court policy, this case is remanded to the district court for the limited

purpose of permitting the district court to provide appellant notice and 

an opportunity to request that the time for filing the notice of appeal 

be extended, for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration 

of the time prescribed by Rule 4(b), upon a finding of excusable 

neglect or good cause.4 

The Supreme Court has established four factors under which this Court must 

evaluate whether neglect is excusable:

(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the 

length of delay and its potential impact on judicial 

proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether 

it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) 

whether the moving party’s conduct was in good faith.5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 

1. On or before August 18, 2015, Mr. Matthisen may file a motion requesting

that the time for filing a notice of appeal be extended, for a period not to 

 4 Docket 15 at 1-2. 

5 Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d 757, 765 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pincay v. Andrews, 389 

F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Pioneer Investment Services, Co. v. Brunswick 

Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) (internal quotation marks 

omitted)).

Case 3:15-cr-00050-SLG Document 16 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 3
3:15-cr-00050-SLG, State of Alaska v. Matthisen

Order Permitting Request for Extension of Time

Page 3 of 3

exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time prescribed by Appellate Rule 

4(b), upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause.

6 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of the Court’s Motion form, 

PS15, to Mr. Matthisen with this Order.

3. The Court will not address the Application to Waive the Filing Fee, at Docket 

12, unless a motion to extend the time for filing an appeal is filed and granted 

by the Court.

7 

4. A copy of this Order shall be served on Mr. Matthisen at the following 

address: 2540 Furrow Creek Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99516. 

DATED this 10th day of August, 2015.

/s/ SHARON L. GLEASON

United States District Judge

 6 See United States v. Arevalo, 408 F.3d 1233, 1239 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he timeliness of 

filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and goes to the very power of an appellate court 

to review alleged errors . . .”).

7 See Docket 15 at 2 (“The proceedings in [the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals] are held in 

abeyance pending the district court’s determination.”). 

Case 3:15-cr-00050-SLG Document 16 Filed 08/10/15 Page 3 of 3