USA v. Matthisen

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
GRANT MARTIN MATTHISEN,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:15-cr-00050-SLG
ORDER PERMITTING REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
On May 20, 2015, Grant Martin Matthisen, representing himself, filed a
Notice of Removal of his state criminal proceedings to this Court.1 	On June 1,
2015, the Court remanded the case to the state court as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1455(b)(4).2 The Court denied reconsideration of the remand on June 23, 2015,
and Mr. Matthisen filed a Notice of Appeal on July 23, 2015.3
On August 7, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an
Order providing as follows:
Because the notice of appeal was filed more than 14 days after entry
of the June 23, 2015 order, it was not timely under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A). The notice of appeal was, however,
filed within 30 days after the expiration of the time to file the notice of
1 Docket 1.
2 Docket 2.
3 Dockets 10, 11; see also Docket 7 at 1 (Order granting Mr. Matthisen’s motion for an
extension of time to file a motion to reconsider the Order of Summary Remand: 	“The
Order of Summary Remand to State Court remains in full force and effect at this time and
unless and until reconsidered by later order of this Court. As a result, this order granting
an extension does not stay any proceedings that may be underway in Alaska Superior
Court No. 3AN-14-03122 CR.”).
Case 3:15-cr-00050-SLG Document 16 Filed 08/10/15 Page 1 of 3

3:15-cr-00050-SLG, State of Alaska v. Matthisen
Order Permitting Request for Extension of Time
Page 2 of 3
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4). Accordingly, pursuant to circuit
court policy, this case is remanded to the district court for the limited
purpose of permitting the district court to provide appellant notice and
an opportunity to request that the time for filing the notice of appeal
be extended, for a period not to exceed 30 days from the expiration
of the time prescribed by Rule 4(b), upon a finding of excusable
neglect or good cause.4
The Supreme Court has established four factors under which this Court must
evaluate whether neglect is excusable:
(1) the danger of prejudice to the non-moving party, (2) the
length 	of 	delay 	and 	its 	potential 	impact 	on 	judicial
proceedings, (3) the reason for the delay, including whether
it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and (4)
whether the moving party’s conduct was in good faith.5
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1. 	On or before August 18, 2015, Mr. Matthisen may file a motion requesting
that the time for filing a notice of appeal be extended, for a period not to
4 Docket 15 at 1-2.
5 Mendez v. Knowles, 556 F.3d 757, 765 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Pincay v. Andrews, 389
F.3d 853, 855 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Pioneer Investment Services, Co. v. Brunswick
Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) (internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Case 3:15-cr-00050-SLG Document 16 Filed 08/10/15 Page 2 of 3

3:15-cr-00050-SLG, State of Alaska v. Matthisen
Order Permitting Request for Extension of Time
Page 3 of 3
exceed 30 days from the expiration of the time prescribed by Appellate Rule
4(b), upon a finding of excusable neglect or good cause.6
2. 	The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of the Court’s Motion form,
PS15, to Mr. Matthisen with this Order.
3. 	The Court will not address the Application to Waive the Filing Fee, at Docket
12, unless a motion to extend the time for filing an appeal is filed and granted
by the Court.7
4. 	A copy of this Order shall be served on Mr. Matthisen at the following
address: 2540 Furrow Creek Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99516.
DATED this 10th day of August, 2015.
/s/ SHARON L. GLEASON
United States District Judge
6 See United States v. Arevalo, 408 F.3d 1233, 1239 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]he timeliness of
filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and goes to the very power of an appellate court
to review alleged errors . . .”).
7 See Docket 15 at 2 (“The proceedings in [the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals] are held in
abeyance pending the district court’s determination.”).
Case 3:15-cr-00050-SLG Document 16 Filed 08/10/15 Page 3 of 3