Opinion
No. 2:12-cv-01903 DAD P
2013-09-17
JAMAI JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. C. CARROZZO, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
On April 15, 2013, this action was closed and judgment entered by the undersigned. On August 13, 2013, plaintiff filed a document styled as an, "Application For Relief From Default." This application was directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit but was nonetheless filed by plaintiff with this court. Therein, plaintiff disputes the dismissal of his complaint by the undersigned for failure to state a cognizable claim and presents the following request to the Ninth Circuit:
Plaintiff previously consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (See ECF No. 5.)
Plaintiff prays that this honorable court will allow plaintiff to submit and address (in a cognizable manner) the denial of plaintiff's family visits before this honorable court, which were denied against (CDCR) policy and regulations embedded within the Title 15 (CDCR) rule book. Plaintiff has compelling proof that CDCR wrongfully denied plaintiff from participating in the family visiting program.(ECF No. 10 at 3-4.) Plaintiff's application was signed on July 17, 2013. To the extent that plaintiff seeks to appeal the judgment entered in this court to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, his appeal is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure ("In a civil case . . . the notice of appeal . . . must be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from."). Although this court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal, a request for an extension must be made "no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires . . . . [and] that party shows excusable neglect or good cause." Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). Here, even if plaintiff's application for relief could be construed as a request for an extension of time to file an appeal, the application was filed more than thirty days after judgment was entered and would be untimely.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's August 13, 2013 application for relief (ECF No. 10) shall be placed in the file and disregarded. Plaintiff is advised that any further documents filed by plaintiff since the closing date will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings.
____________________________
DALE A. DROZD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE