Adkinsv.Jeffreys

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern DivisionOct 3, 2006
Case No. 2:04-cv-1094 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 3, 2006)

Case No. 2:04-cv-1094.

October 3, 2006


ORDER


TERENCE KEMP, Magistrate Judge

Petitioner has filed a request for clarification of this Court's Opinion and Order, August 24, 2006, Doc. No. 56. Petitioner's request for clarification is GRANTED. Clarification is provided as follows:

On August 9, 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit remanded petitioner's appeal to this Court for the limited purpose of treating petitioner's May 2, 2006, notice of appeal from the March 15, 2006, order denying petitioner leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and denying his motion to reconsider or reopen his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 action as a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) for extension of time to file the appeal. See Doc. No. 54. As discussed, petitioner's May 2, 2006, notice of appeal was untimely, and absent an order granting petitioner an extension of time to file the notice of appeal, the appeal may have been dismissed on that basis.

Therefore, pursuant to the remand from the United States Court of Appeals, this Court construed petitioner's untimely May 2, 2006, notice of appeal as a request for an extension of time to file an appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). The Court granted petitioner's request for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal. However, the Court denied any request for a certificate of appealability made under the May 2, 2006, notice of appeal under the standard set forth in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000).

The Court also denied petitioner's request for a stay of proceedings, Doc. No. 55, as moot.

The foregoing is a clarification of the Opinion and Order, August 24, 2006, Doc. No. 56, made at petitioner's request.