Pettibone v. Cupp, 81-3103
Decision Date | 07 December 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 81-3103,81-3103 |
Citation | 666 F.2d 333 |
Parties | Andrew W. PETTIBONE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Hoyt C. CUPP, Warden of Oregon State Penitentiary, and James A. Redden, Attorney General of the State of Oregon, Respondents-Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Phillip Margolin, Portland, Or., for petitioner-appellant.
Richard David Wasserman, Salem, Or., for respondents-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.
Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, and CHAMBERS and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.
Appellant is a prisoner at the Oregon state prison at Salem, Oregon. He seeks to appeal the dismissal by the district court of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. We do not reach the merits of his appeal as we hold that we have no appellate jurisdiction.
The judgment dismissing appellant's petition was filed and entered on January 5, 1981. The judgment meets the requirements of Rule 58 F.R.Civ.P., and the record indicates that there was no irregularity in serving the judgment on the parties, as required by Rule 77(d), F.R.Civ.P. On Friday, February 6, 1981, the district court received several documents from the appellant. They included a notice of appeal, a motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the supporting Criminal Justice Act affidavit of poverty, a motion for appointment of counsel, and a petition for a certificate of probable cause. Each of the documents was dated February 4, 1981. The district court granted the certificate of probable cause, an attorney was subsequently appointed, and the appeal proceeded in forma pauperis.
A habeas corpus action is considered a "civil" matter and thus subject to the time requirements set down in Rule 4(a), F.R.A.P. In a civil appeal not involving the United States government, the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of the date of entry of judgment, in this case by Wednesday, February 4, 1981. The 30-day time limit of Rule 4(a) is mandatory and jurisdictional. Browder v. Director, Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 560, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).
Rule 4(a)(5) provides for extensions of time in certain circumstances:
This language was adopted in 1979. Prior to the 1979 amendments, the pertinent portion of Rule 4(a) stated that:
In this case there was no motion for extension of time by the appellant. The untimeliness of the notice of appeal was apparently not detected either by the district court or the parties; there is no discussion of the issue in the parties' brief. In times past, and under the less specific language of Rule 4(a) prior to the 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chase v. Scalici
...of procedure for such litigants (Parisie v. Greer, 705 F.2d 882, 888, 892 [opinions of WOOD and POSNER, JJ.] [en banc]; Pettibone v. Cupp, 666 F.2d 333, 335). Finally, legal considerations aside, we fail to perceive any injustice in this case. Defendant was directed to pay Mr. Chase $300 an......
-
Wilkins v. Menchaca (In re Wilkins)
...holding that FRAP 4(a)'s time period for filing a notice of appeal is also "mandatory and jurisdictional." See, e.g., Pettibone v. Cupp, 666 F.2d 333, 334 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Browder v. Dir., Dept. of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978), superseded in p......
-
Tinsley v. Borg
...a certificate of probable cause from the district court. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253; Fed.R.App.P. 4(a) & 22(b); see, e.g., Pettibone v. Cupp, 666 F.2d 333, 334 (9th Cir.1981). If the district judge denies the certificate, the applicant may then request it from the court of appeals. Fed.R.App.P. Th......
-
US EX REL. HAIGHT v. Catholic Healthcare West
...of appeals has no power to grant extensions under Rule 4. On slip opinion page 2066, 594 F.3d at 699, last line, after the citation to Pettibone, insert the following as a Like In re Hoag, Pettibone survives the 1998 amendments to Rule 26(b). With these amendments, the panel has voted to de......
-
"A watchdog for the good of the order": the Ninth Circuit's en banc coordinator.
...1, 2010, 6:03 p.m. EST). (34.) Memo. from Alfred T. Goodwin to Panel, Re: Pettibone v. Cupp, (June 4, 1982) (addressing Pettibone v. Cupp, 666 F.2d 333 (9th Cir. (35.) Memo. from Alfred T. Goodwin to Panel, Re: U.S. v. Zolin (Sept. 15, 1987) (addressing U.S. v. Zolin, 809 F.2d 1411 (9th Cir......