only avenue for filing an appeal more than sixty days from the February 20, 2004,
docket entry of his petition’s dismissal.
CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing analysis, Felton’s motion to file a late notice of appeal

is denied,
Charles P. Kocoras
Chief Judge
United States District Court
MAY 1 9 2004
Dated:



4(a)(1)(A) and 4(a)(5)(A) make clear that the relevant date for notice of appeal
purposes (including motions for extensions of time) is the date of entry of a judgment,
not the date the movant receives notice of the judgment. Felton argues that for
constitutional purposes, the Rule 4(a) clock should not run against an inmate until he
receives notice ofa judgment via the mail. In essence, he asks that we adopt an inverse
version of the “mailbox rule.” See Jones v. Bertrand, 17] F.3d 499, 502 (7th Cir.
1999),

We decline Felton’s request. The language of Rule 4(a) expressly differentiates
between instances where the date of a judgment’s entry is relevant (Rule 4(a)(1)), as
opposed to the date when a party receives notice of the judgment (Rule 4(a)(6)). In
addition, numerous courts in this district and the Seventh Circuit have held that for
habeas petitioners such as Felton, the applicable date for starting Rule 4(a)’s clock is
the date the denial of the habeas petition is entered on the docket. See U.S. v. Clark,
1992 WL 373132 (N.D. Il] 1992); Bell y. Mizell, 931 F.2d 444 (7th Cir, 1991); U.S.
ex rel. Leonard v. O’Leary, 788 F.2d 1238 (7th Cir. 1986); Centanni v. Snyder, 96
F. Supp. 2d 761 (N.D. HI. 2000). While Felton’s motion presents various reasons why
his untimely filing is due to excusable neglect and good cause, he does not demonstrate
that he received notice of his petition’s dismissal more than twenty-one days after its

entry. For this reason, he is unable to meet the requirements of Rule 4(a)(6)(B) — the

3.



Minute Onder Farm (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Dlinois

Name of Assigned Jud; 44 Sitting Judge if Other
age Mogletrate Judge Charles P. Kocoras than Auigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C 5708 DATE 5/19/2004
CASE Felton vs. Bowen
TITLE

[ln the following box (a) indicate the party filing the mation, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

of the motion being presented.

ay

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

() Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above. ]

(2) Qo Bricf in support of motion due

6 a Answer brief to motion due__. Reply to answer brief due

(4) gO Ruling/Hearing on___ssetfor_—_at

(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-sct for]on__setfor____at.

(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continucd to] [set for/re-set for]on___setfor__—at__

(7) (J Trial[sct for/re-sct for} on __at

(8) o (Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to_ at

(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) O Local Rule 41.1 OO FRCP41(a)(1) €) FRCP41(a)(2).

(0) Ml (Otherdocket entry] ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION: Felton’s motion (Doc 14-1) to file

a late notice of appeal is denied.

| | [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order,]

No notices required, udvised in open court.

No notices required.
req umber of naticgs

Notices mailed by judge's staff.

Notified counsel by telephone. date dockered

oY | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AQ 450 form, iusce pemreig ey dockets deputy tiny
Copy to judge/magistrate jud; piss that
Py to judgeymagistrate judge.
courtruom Sap le Et aed eae date maited notice
SCT deputy's
initials
~ Date/time regeived in
cemtal Clerk's Office emailing depoty initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS BA aka) \
EASTERN DIVISION
way 2.0 2004
THOMAS FELTON, )
Plaintiff,
vs. 03 C5708
EDWIN R, BOWEN,
Defendant. }
MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES P. KOCORAS, Chief District Judge:

This matter comes before the court on Petitioner Thomas Felton’s (“Felton”)
motion to file a late notice of appeal. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is
denied.

BACKGROUND

Felton is currently a prisoner at the Centralia Correctional Center in Centralia,
Illinois. He is in the custody of Respondent Edwin Bowen, the facility’s warden. On
February 19, 2004, this court dismissed Felton’s petition for writ of habeas corpus,
The judgment was entered on the docket the next day. Under Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure (the “Rule”) 4(a)(1)(A), Felton had thirty days from February 20

Ig



(March 21) to timely file a notice of appeal. On April 22, 2004, Felton filed the present
motion to file a late notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION

Even though Felton missed the date for filing his notice of appeal, he had thirty
days from the March 21, 2004, deadline (April 20) to file a motion for an extension of
time. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i), In order to succeed on such a motion, besides
filing it by April 20, 2004, Felton would have been required to demonstrate “excusable
neglect or good cause” for the tardy filing. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). Because the
deadline for filing a Rule 4(a)(5) motion for extension of time has passed, the only
mechanism for Felton to file an appeal is Rule 4(a)(6). However, in order for a district
court to reopen the time to file an appeal, the court must find, inter alia, that the
moving party did not receive notice of the district court’s original judgment or order
within twenty-one days of its entry. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6)(B). Felton’s present
motion does not allege that he did not receive notice of our dismissal of his habeas
petition within twenty-one days of its entry on the docket.

Felton’s motion argues that the Rule 4(a)(1)(A) clock should not have started
running until he received notice of his habeas petition’s dismissal, sometime after
February 23, 2004. Ifthis was the case, Felton would have had until April 23, 2004,

to file a motion for extension of time under Rule 4(a)(5)(A). However, Rules

-2-