Summary
This district court order denies a pro se habeas petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The court determines that the petitioner missed the mandatory thirty-day deadline to request the extension under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) and submitted no corroborating evidence that he timely mailed his original notice of appeal under the prison mailbox rule. As a result, the court lacks the authority to grant the extension or evaluate claims of excusable neglect.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to an extension of time to file a notice of appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A).
- Whether the prison mailbox rule establishes a filing date for the petitioner’s alleged earlier notice of appeal.
Holdings
- The motion for an extension of time is denied because it was filed more than thirty days after the statutory deadline and the petitioner offered no evidence of excusable neglect or good cause.
Factual background
Petitioner filed a pro se habeas petition that was denied. He later filed a motion for an extension of time to file his notice of appeal, claiming he had mailed a notice on November 25, 2024, but provided no supporting evidence.
Procedural history
The district court denied the habeas petition on November 15, 2024, granted leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and later denied the motion for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal.