Filed: Aug. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 10, 2015
Summary: ORDER PERMITTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME SHARON L. GLEASON , District Judge . On May 20, 2015, Grant Martin Matthisen, representing himself, filed a Notice of Removal of his state criminal proceedings to this Court. 1 On June 1, 2015, the Court remanded the case to the state court as required by 28 U.S.C. 1455(b)(4). 2 The Court denied reconsideration of the remand on June 23, 2015, and Mr. Matthisen filed a Notice of Appeal on July 23, 2015. 3 On August 7, 2015, the Court of A
Summary: ORDER PERMITTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME SHARON L. GLEASON , District Judge . On May 20, 2015, Grant Martin Matthisen, representing himself, filed a Notice of Removal of his state criminal proceedings to this Court. 1 On June 1, 2015, the Court remanded the case to the state court as required by 28 U.S.C. 1455(b)(4). 2 The Court denied reconsideration of the remand on June 23, 2015, and Mr. Matthisen filed a Notice of Appeal on July 23, 2015. 3 On August 7, 2015, the Court of Ap..
More
ORDER PERMITTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
SHARON L. GLEASON, District Judge.
On May 20, 2015, Grant Martin Matthisen, representing himself, filed a Notice of Removal of his state criminal proceedings to this Court.1 On June 1, 2015, the Court remanded the case to the state court as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4).2 The Court denied reconsideration of the remand on June 23, 2015, and Mr. Matthisen filed a Notice of Appeal on July 23, 2015.3
On August 7, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an Order providing as follows:
Because the notice of appeal was filed more than 14 days after entry of the June 23, 2015 order, it was not timely under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A). The notice of appeal was, however, filed within 30 days after the expiration of the time to file the notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Accordingly, pursuant to circuit court policy, this case is remanded to the district court for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to provide appellant notice and an opportunity to request that the time for filing the notice of appeal be extended, for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time prescribed by Rule 4(b), upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause.4
The Supreme Court has established four factors under which this Court must evaluate whether neglect is excusable:
(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4) whether the moving party's conduct was in good faith.5
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. On or before August 18, 2015, Mr. Matthisen may file a motion requesting that the time for filing a notice of appeal be extended, for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time prescribed by Appellate Rule 4(b), upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause.6
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of the Court's Motion form, PS15, to Mr. Matthisen with this Order.
3. The Court will not address the Application to Waive the Filing Fee, at Docket 12, unless a motion to extend the time for filing an appeal is filed and granted by the Court.7
4. A copy of this Order shall be served on Mr. Matthisen at the following address: 2540 Furrow Creek Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99516.
