Contreras v. Gamboa
- Beth Freeman
- 5:20-cv-06206
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Contreras v. Gamboa, Judge Freeman denied Contreras’s request for more time to appeal his habeas-case judgment because the deadline had expired.
Ernesto Morales Contreras’s ability to obtain additional time to file a notice of appeal from the judgment denying his petition; the motion was denied, while the earlier judgment in favor of Martin Gamboa remained in place.
What happened
In Contreras v. Gamboa, Ernesto Morales Contreras, representing himself, asked for more time to appeal the denial of his challenge to his 2016 criminal judgment and sentence.
The court had previously reopened the appeal period for 14 days, giving Contreras until July 20, 2022, to file a notice of appeal. He filed a letter on September 16 requesting more time because he had been ill with COVID-19.
The court denied the request because the applicable rule does not allow relief after its 180-day limit had expired. Judge Beth Labson Freeman also terminated the docket entry concerning the motion.
The detailed version
- Contreras v. Gamboa · No. 5:20-cv-06206
- Beth Freeman
- Sept. 19, 2022
Background
Ernesto Morales Contreras filed a petition challenging his 2016 criminal judgment and sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court denied that petition on the merits on December 29, 2021, and entered judgment for Martin Gamboa, the warden.
Earlier Appeal-Deadline Ruling
On May 23, 2022, Contreras moved under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6) to reopen the time to appeal. The court granted that motion and gave him 14 days from the order reopening the deadline to file a notice of appeal. That order was filed on July 6, 2022, so the deadline was July 20, 2022. The court warned that no further extensions could be granted under Rule 4(a).
Motion at Issue
Contreras did not file a notice of appeal by July 20 or during the following months. On September 16, 2022, he filed a letter asking for time to file a document described as a “certificate of appeal” to the Ninth Circuit, citing illness from COVID-19.
Ruling
The court held that relief from the expired appeal period could not be sought after Rule 4(a)(6)’s 180-day period. It also stated that Rule 4(a) is the exclusive way to obtain relief from the deadline and must be enforced in both represented and self-represented cases. Judge Beth Labson Freeman therefore DENIED Contreras’s motion for an extension of time and terminated Docket No. 18. This order addressed the appeal deadline, not the merits of the earlier habeas petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.