Joaquin v. Smith
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-09372
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Joaquin v. Smith, Judge Engelmayer denied Joaquin’s motion to extend his habeas appeal deadline because neither available extension rule applied.
Miguel E. Joaquin’s ability to appeal the earlier denial of his habeas petition; the court left the case closed.
What happened
In Joaquin v. Smith, Miguel E. Joaquin, who was representing himself, had previously lost his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a challenge to his custody, and judgment was entered on February 27, 2023. He had until March 29, 2023, to appeal but did not file a notice of appeal.
Joaquin moved on August 29, 2023, to extend the appeal deadline. He said he could not find a facility law-library clerk to help him. The court explained that one extension procedure required a motion by April 28, 2023, and that another applied only if Joaquin had not received notice of the judgment—something he did not claim.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied the motion because neither procedure allowed an extension on these facts. The court stated that the case remains closed.
The detailed version
- Joaquin v. Smith · No. 1:21-cv-09372
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 30, 2023
Background
On February 27, 2023, the court denied pro se petitioner Miguel E. Joaquin’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which permits a person in state custody to seek federal habeas relief. The clerk entered judgment that same day. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1), Joaquin had 30 days—until March 29, 2023—to file a notice of appeal. He did not file one.
Motion to Extend the Appeal Deadline
Joaquin filed a motion on August 29, 2023, asking for more time to appeal. He stated that he had been unable to find a facility law-library clerk to assist him.
The court considered two possible procedures. Rule 4(a)(5) permits an extension if the motion is filed no later than 30 days after the original appeal deadline. That additional period ended on April 28, 2023, and Joaquin did not file a motion during it.
Rule 4(a)(6) permits a court to reopen the appeal period for 14 days when the person did not receive timely notice that judgment had been entered, the motion meets specified timing requirements, and reopening would not prejudice another party. Joaquin did not allege that he failed to receive notice of the judgment. The court held that his lack of access to a law-library clerk was not a reason recognized by Rule 4(a)(6). The court also noted that the 180-day deadline for a motion to reopen had passed, while assuming for purposes of discussion that the prison-mailbox rule might treat the motion as filed when Joaquin delivered it for mailing.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Joaquin’s motion for an extension of time to file an appeal. The court stated that the case remains closed.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.