David Perryman v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; Dr. Blaisdell; John Doe Secretary; John Doe Warden; Hodges, Chief Medical Officer
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff David Perryman, a prisoner, moved to continue the deadline for filing a notice of appeal based on health conditions and his status as a prisoner. The court granted the motions, extending the deadline to file a notice of appeal to January 23, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's Motions to Continue Submission of Appeal“Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motions to Continue Submission of Appeal.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the motions were filed within the original 30-day window (December 24, 2025), satisfying the timeliness requirement of Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(i). The court accepted the plaintiff's assertion of health conditions and prisoner status as 'good cause' under Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). The calculation of the extended deadline (January 23, 2026) correctly applies the 'whichever is later' provision of Rule 4(a)(5)(C), as 30 days after the original deadline (Jan 23) is later than 14 days after the order date (Jan 19). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the relevant Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure to determine the original deadline, verifies the timeliness of the extension motion, accepts the stated grounds for good cause, and correctly calculates the new deadline using the 'whichever is later' rule. The reliance on *Schwartzmiller* is appropriate for establishing that the prior reconsideration motion tolled the appeal clock.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID PERRYMAN, Case No.: 25cv2072-TWR (BLM) CDCR #AB-1204, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTIONS TO CONTINUE vs. SUBMISSION OF APPEAL 14 15 (ECF Nos. 11–12) CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 16 CORRECTIONS AND 17 REHABILITATION; DR. BLAISDELL; JOHN DOE Secretary; JOHN DOE 18 Warden; HODGES, Chief Medical Officer; 19 ROBERTS Chief Medical Executive; THE ENTIRE ADA COMMITTEE, 20 Defendants. 21 22 23 Presently before the Court are Plaintiff David Perryman’s Motions to Continue 24 Submission of Appeal. (See ECF Nos. 11–12 (“Motions”).) Under Federal Rule of 25 Appellate Procedure Rule 4(a)(1)(A), “[i]n a civil case, except as provided in Rules 26 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4), and 4(c), the notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the 27 district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” However, 28 under Rule 4(a)(5)(A), “[t]he district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal 1 if: (i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) 2 expires; and (ii) . . . that party shows excusable neglect or good cause.” 3 As to timeliness, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration on 4 November 24, 2025; therefore, under Rule 4(a)(4)(A), the time to file an appeal runs from 5 November 24, 2025.1 Under Rule 4(a)(1)(A), Plaintiff’s deadline for filing an appeal was 6 December 24, 2025. Plaintiff filed his Motions to Continue Submission of Appeal on 7 December 11, 2025, and December 22, 2025. (See Motions.) Because Plaintiff filed his 8 Motions within the time for filing an appeal under Rule 4, his request for a continuance is 9 timely. 10 As to good cause, Plaintiff requests a continuance based on the difficulties of filing 11 an appeal because of his health conditions and status as a prisoner. (See ECF No. 11 at 12 3–4.) Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motions to Continue 13 Submission of Appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5)(C), no extension “may exceed 30 days after 14 the prescribed time or 14 days after the date when the order granting the motion is entered, 15 whichever is later.” Because 30 days after the prescribed time under Rule 4 is later, the 16 Court extends Plaintiff’s time to submit an appeal to January 23, 2026. If Plaintiff wishes 17 to proceed with an appeal, he may file a Notice of Appeal,2 with the Clerk’s Office of the 18 Southern District of California District Court by January 23, 2026. 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 25 1 Under Rule 4(a)(4)(A), if a party files a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59, the time to file an appeal runs from the entry of the order disposing of such motion. “[A] motion requesting 26 reconsideration of a matter previously decided may be construed as a motion to alter or amend judgment under Rule 59(e).” Schwartzmiller v. Rodriguez, No. 317CV00538JAHPCL, 2017 WL 5194581, at *1 27 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017).
28 I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: January 5, 2026 —_—— 4 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 ee