Contreras v. Gamboa
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-06206
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Contreras v. Gamboa, Judge Freeman ordered pro se petitioner to provide receipt-date information before ruling on his motion to reopen the appeal deadline.
Ernesto Morales Contreras was required to provide additional information before the court would decide his motion to reopen the appeal deadline. The order did not change the judgment denying his habeas petition.
What happened
In Contreras v. Gamboa, Ernesto Morales Contreras filed a self-represented petition challenging his 2016 criminal judgment and sentence. The court denied that petition on the merits on December 29, 2021.
Contreras later asked to reopen the time to appeal, saying COVID-19 restrictions at Avenal State Prison limited his law-library access. The court found that his motion was timely and that reopening the appeal period did not appear to prejudice any party, but he did not state when he received notice of the judgment.
The court ordered Contreras to provide the exact date he received the order and judgment, along with any available prison-mail proof, within 21 days. Judge Beth Labson Freeman warned that failing to respond would result in denial of the motion under the appellate rule.
The detailed version
- Contreras v. Gamboa · No. 5:20-cv-06206
- Beth Freeman
- May 31, 2022
Background
Ernesto Morales Contreras filed a self-represented petition for federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 2016 criminal judgment and sentence. On December 29, 2021, the court denied the petition on the merits and entered judgment for Martin Gamboa, the respondent.
On May 23, 2022, Contreras filed a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) to reopen the time for filing an appeal. He said he lacked access to the law library during January, February, and until mid-March because of a COVID-19 lockdown at Avenal State Prison.
Rule 4(a)(6)
Rule 4(a)(6) permits a district court to reopen the time for an appeal for 14 days after the reopening order, but only if three conditions are met: the moving party did not receive notice of the judgment within 21 days after it was entered; the motion was filed within 180 days after entry of judgment or within 14 days after receiving notice, whichever applies; and reopening would not prejudice another party. The court also explained that Rule 4(a) is the exclusive method for obtaining relief after the ordinary appeal deadline expires.
Court’s action
The court determined that Contreras satisfied the timing requirement in Rule 4(a)(6)(B), because he filed the motion within 180 days after judgment was entered. The court also found that the motion appeared to satisfy Rule 4(a)(6)(C), because no party appeared likely to be prejudiced. The motion was filed on May 23, 2022, within the 180-day period ending June 27, 2022.
The court could not determine whether Contreras satisfied Rule 4(a)(6)(A) because he did not state when he received notice of the order denying his petition and the judgment. The court ordered him to file, within 21 days of the order, an affidavit stating the exact receipt date and any available proof from the prison mail system. The court stated that failure to respond would result in denial of the motion to reopen the time to file an appeal for failure to satisfy Rule 4(a)(6). The order did not itself grant or deny the motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.