(PC) Williams v. Hutson

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 29, 2021
• Docket: 2:16-cv-01495
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Antonio Ronnell Williams, No. 2:16-cv-01495-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Hutson, et al., 1S Defendant. 16 17 On June 11, 2021, the Ninth Circuit remanded this case to this court “for the limited 18 | purpose of allowing [this court] to make factual findings whether appellant delivered the notice of 19 | appeal to prison officials for mailing to the court in compliance with the requirements of Federal 20 | Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c) within 14 days after receiving notice of the entry of judgment.” 21 | Order at 2, ECF No. 92 (citing Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 22 | (1988)). The Ninth Circuit also requested that if this court determines the notice of appeal would 23 | be timely as a motion to reopen the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 | 4(a)(6), this court also rule on the motion to reopen the time to appeal. See id. at 2-3. The 25 | circuit’s order further permits this court to “call for any additional submissions from the parties” 26 | as this court “deems appropriate.” /d. at 3. 27 Within 21 days of receiving service of this order, plaintiff may file a further submission 28 | in support of his claim that he delivered the notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing to the

1 | court in compliance with the requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(c) within 14 2 | days after receiving notice of the entry of judgment. That further submission may also explain 3 | why, if this court determines the notice of appeal would be timely, the court should grant the 4 | motion to reopen the time to appeal. Defendant may file a response within 14 days of receiving 5 | service of any such further submission. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 DATED: June 29, 2021. 8 ° l ti / ¢ is CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE