(PC) Williams v. Department of State Hospitals-Coalinga ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRISTIAN WILLIAMS, No. 2:23-cv-00878-DAD-AC (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME 14 DEPARTMENT OF STATE TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEAL HOSPITALS–COALINGA, et al. 15 (Doc. Nos. 16, 17) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Christian Williams, a civil detainee held by the Department of State Hospitals in 18 Coalinga, is proceeding pro se in this civil action, which was removed from the small claims 19 division of the Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1-1 at 2-8.) On March 19, 2024, the 20 court dismissed all claims brought by plaintiff against defendant Gonzalez, a federal court 21 employee, and remanded the remaining claims to the Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 22 14.) Judgment was entered on the same day. (Doc. No. 15.) 23 Plaintiff has since filed two separate motions seeking an extension of time to appeal and 24 for the appointment of counsel, on April 19, 2024 and April 22, 2024, respectively.1 (Doc. Nos. 25 26 1 The motions are duplicative, but were filed in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as well as this 27 court according to the proof of service. (Doc. No. 16 at 10.) The Ninth Circuit motion was forwarded to this court for adjudication. (Id. at 1) (file stamp indicating that the motion was 28 received in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but not docketed). 1 16, 17.) The motions request additional time to file a notice of appeal based on plaintiff’s 2 deteriorating health as well as facility lockdowns that purportedly limit his access to the law 3 library, computer lab, and copy center. 4 Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure permits a district court to extend 5 the time to file a notice of appeal if “(i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time 6 prescribed by Rule 4(a) expires; and (ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or during 7 the 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party shows excusable neglect 8 or good cause.” 9 In this case, plaintiff had 60 days to file a notice of appeal because one of the parties was 10 an officer or employee of the United States. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Judgment was 11 entered on March 19, 2024 and the time to file a notice of appeal expired on May 20, 2024.2 12 Plaintiff filed his motions for an extension of time before his appeal deadline had expired. Thus, 13 they are timely. Therefore, the only question remaining before the court is whether plaintiff has 14 demonstrated good cause or excusable neglect to extend his appeal deadline. In making this 15 determination, the court has “wide discretion as to whether to excuse the lapse” by plaintiff. See 16 Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 859 (9th Cir. 2004). In this case, the court finds that plaintiff 17 has established good cause based on factors that are beyond his control. Therefore, plaintiff’s 18 motions for an extension of time to appeal are granted. The court will deny plaintiff’s motions 19 for the appointment of counsel on appeal without prejudice to plaintiff filing such a request in the 20 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 21 Accordingly: 22 1. Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal (Doc. Nos. 23 16, 17) are granted for good cause shown; 24 2. Plaintiff is granted 14 days from the date of this order in which to file a timely 25 notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a)(5)(C); and 26 //// 27 2 The actual deadline fell on Saturday, May 18, 2024. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C) (extending 28 deadlines that fall on the weekend to the end of the next business day). 1 3. Plaintiff's requests for the appointment of counsel on appeal are denied without 2 prejudice to refiling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _ September 3, 2024 Da A. 2, sxe 5 DALE A. DROZD ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28