(HC) Yang v. Fisher ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SENG YANG, Case No. 1:16-cv-01863-DAD-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 13 v. FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL 14 RAYTHEL FISHER, JR., ECF No. 27 15 Respondent. ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR COPIES OF ORDERS, 16 PLEADINGS, AND OTHER DOCUMENTS 17 ECF Nos. 28, 31 18 ORDER ON PETITIONER’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON 19 APPEAL 20 ECF No. 32 21 22 Petitioner Seng Yang, a state prisoner without counsel, sough a writ of habeas corpus 23 through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This court denied the petition and 24 declined to issue a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 25. Petitioner appealed, ECF Nos. 29, 25 33, and filed several motions that pertain to his appeal. We will address those motions after the 26 entry of judgment. 27 28 1 I. Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal 2 Petitioner has filed a document titled, “Motion for An Order to Stay and Relief from 3 Judgment or Order Pending Court’s Ruling on Motions Submitted.” ECF No. 27. Despite the 4 document’s title, petitioner seeks an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and cites a case 5 that discussed a district court’s authority to extend a deadline to file a notice of appeal. See id. at 6 2 (citing Browder v. Dir., Dep’t of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 265 (1978)). Given the motion’s 7 substance, we construe petitioner’s motion as a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of 8 appeal. See United States ex rel. Hoggett v. Univ. of Phoenix, 863 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 9 2017) (reasoning that motion’s substance, not its title, governs its disposition). Under 10 Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a district court may extend the time to 11 file a notice of appeal if a party shows excusable neglect or good cause. Petitioner states that he 12 suffers from mental illnesses and that he needs another inmate’s assistance to litigate this case. 13 See ECF No. 27 at 1-2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal is 14 granted. 15 II. Petitioner’s Motions for Copies of Orders, Pleadings, and Other Documents 16 Petitioner asks that the court send copies of court orders, pleadings, and other documents 17 to an inmate who would help petitioner with this appeal. ECF Nos. 28, 31. He states that because 18 of his mental illnesses and other circumstances, he cannot litigate this case effectively and needs 19 the assistance of another inmate, who is not an attorney. See ECF No. 28 at 28. We are mindful 20 of petitioner’s circumstances, but courts cannot authorize inmates to engage in unauthorized 21 practice of law by filing submissions on behalf of others. See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 22 1349, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981) (“No authority authorizes them to engage in the practice of law by 23 filing papers with the court as the inmate’s legal representative.”); Hernandez v. County of Los 24 Angeles, No. 19-586, 2019 WL 2880403, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019) (citing Storseth, 654 25 F.2d at 1355). In addition, the documents filed with this court include certain documents that 26 respondent and state courts have designated as confidential. See ECF No. 13 at 2. Petitioner can 27 pursue other forms of relief: for example, he may ask prison staff at his institution of confinement 28 to allow him to see an inmate who would provide assistance, or he can ask the Ninth Circuit for 1 | relief, such as appointment of counsel. But this court cannot grant petitioner’s motions to have 2 | certain of the documents filed in this case forwarded to another inmate to enable that inmate to 3 | represent petitioner. These motions are denied. 4 | III. Petitioner’s Motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis on Appeal 5 Petitioner moves to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. ECF No. 32. He states that he 6 | cannot timely obtain his prisoner trust-account statements that would support his in forma 7 | pauperis status. See id. at 1. The familiar provision under the Prison Litigation Reform Act that 8 || requires such trust-account statements does not apply in habeas proceedings. See Naddi v. Hill, 9 | 106 F.3d 275, 277 (9th Cir. 1997). In any event, we are satisfied that petitioner cannot pay the 10 | filing fee and that he is taking pursuing his appeal in bad faith. We will grant petitioner’s motion 11 | to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 12 | IV. Order 13 1. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, ECF No. 27, is 14 granted. 15 2. Petitioner’s motion for a certificate of appealability, ECF No. 30, is denied as moot. 16 3. Petitioner’s motions for copies of orders, pleadings, and other documents, 17 ECF Nos. 28, 31, are denied. 18 4. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, ECF No. 32, is granted. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ( Waban Dated: _ August 5, 2019 22 UNIT#D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 No. 202 26 27 28