JEREMY D. PETERSON, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner Seng Yang, a state prisoner without counsel, sough a writ of habeas corpus through a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. ECF No. 1. This court denied the petition and declined to issue a certificate of appealability. ECF No. 25. Petitioner appealed, ECF Nos. 29, 33, and filed several motions that pertain to his appeal. We will address those motions after the entry of judgment.
Petitioner has filed a document titled, "Motion for An Order to Stay and Relief from Judgment or Order Pending Court's Ruling on Motions Submitted." ECF No. 27. Despite the document's title, petitioner seeks an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and cites a case that discussed a district court's authority to extend a deadline to file a notice of appeal. See id. at 2 (citing Browder v. Dir., Dep't of Corr. of Ill., 434 U.S. 257, 265 (1978)). Given the motion's substance, we construe petitioner's motion as a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. See United States ex rel. Hoggett v. Univ. of Phoenix, 863 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir. 2017) (reasoning that motion's substance, not its title, governs its disposition). Under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, a district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if a party shows excusable neglect or good cause. Petitioner states that he suffers from mental illnesses and that he needs another inmate's assistance to litigate this case. See ECF No. 27 at 1-2. Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal is granted.
Petitioner asks that the court send copies of court orders, pleadings, and other documents to an inmate who would help petitioner with this appeal. ECF Nos. 28, 31. He states that because of his mental illnesses and other circumstances, he cannot litigate this case effectively and needs the assistance of another inmate, who is not an attorney. See ECF No. 28 at 28. We are mindful of petitioner's circumstances, but courts cannot authorize inmates to engage in unauthorized practice of law by filing submissions on behalf of others. See Storseth v. Spellman, 654 F.2d 1349, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981) ("No authority authorizes them to engage in the practice of law by filing papers with the court as the inmate's legal representative."); Hernandez v. County of Los Angeles, No. 19-586, 2019 WL 2880403, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019) (citing Storseth, 654 F.2d at 1355). In addition, the documents filed with this court include certain documents that respondent and state courts have designated as confidential. See ECF No. 13 at 2. Petitioner can pursue other forms of relief: for example, he may ask prison staff at his institution of confinement to allow him to see an inmate who would provide assistance, or he can ask the Ninth Circuit for relief, such as appointment of counsel. But this court cannot grant petitioner's motions to have certain of the documents filed in this case forwarded to another inmate to enable that inmate to represent petitioner. These motions are denied.
Petitioner moves to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. ECF No. 32. He states that he cannot timely obtain his prisoner trust-account statements that would support his in forma pauperis status. See id. at 1. The familiar provision under the Prison Litigation Reform Act that requires such trust-account statements does not apply in habeas proceedings. See Naddi v. Hill, 106 F.3d 275, 277 (9th Cir. 1997). In any event, we are satisfied that petitioner cannot pay the filing fee and that he is taking pursuing his appeal in bad faith. We will grant petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.