Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01553/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01553-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tom L. Carey
Respondent
William Raymond Hodge
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM RAYMOND HODGE, No. 2:06-cv-1553-MCE-DAD-P

Petitioner,

v. ORDER

TOM L. CAREY, et al.,

Respondents. 

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a

second or successive petition. After this action was dismissed

without prejudice on August 25, 2006, petitioner attempted to

file an appellate brief in the court of appeals in September 2006

and was advised that no appeal had been filed. Petitioner then

filed, again in the court of appeals, a motion for extension of

time to file an appeal. The motion was received in the court of

appeals on October 16, 2006. On November 7, 2006, petitioner

filed a notice of appeal in the court of appeals. 

Case 2:06-cv-01553-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 11/28/06 Page 1 of 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

2

The notice is deemed filed in the district court on November 7,

2006. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(d).

The district court may extend a party’s time to file a

notice of appeal if the party moves for an extension within 30

days after the time for filing an appeal expires. Fed. R. App.

P. 4(a)(5)(A). If the district court grants an extension of time

to file a notice of appeal, the extension may not exceed 30 days

after the time for filing a notice of appeal expires or 10 days

after the date when the order granting the motion is entered,

whichever is later. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C). To obtain an

extension of time to file a notice of appeal, the party must show

excusable neglect or good cause. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii).

The petitioner in this case was required to file his notice

of appeal in the district court within 30 days after August 25,

2006. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Any motion for an

extension of time to file a notice of appeal had to be filed no

later than October 25, 2006. Petitioner’s motion was filed prior

to October 25, 2006. In light of petitioner’s pro se status, the

court finds excusable neglect and will grant petitioner an

extension of time to the date 10 days after this order is

entered. Such an extension of time renders petitioner’s November

7, 2006 notice of appeal timely.

Before petitioner can appeal the judgment entered in this

court on August 25, 2006, a certificate of appealability must

issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). 

Case 2:06-cv-01553-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 11/28/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Such a certificate may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 “only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The district

court must issue a certificate of appealability indicating which

issues make the required showing or state the reasons why such a

certificate should not issue. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). For the

reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s July 24, 2006

findings and recommendations, the petitioner in this case has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right with regard to his second or successive habeas petition.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for

extension of time to file an appeal is granted, the notice of

appeal received in the court of appeals on November 7, 2006 is

deemed timely, and a certificate of appealability should not

issue in this action.

DATED: November 28, 2006

_________________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01553-MCE -DAD Document 12 Filed 11/28/06 Page 3 of 3