United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MICHAEL VAZQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the filing of (1) a Motion
to Proceed In Forma Pauperis on appeal; and (2) a
Motion for Leave to File an Out of Time Notice of Appeal and
for Assignment of Counsel (“Motion to Appeal”) by
Petitioner David Howard (“Petitioner”). (ECF Nos.
23, 24.) For the reasons expressed below, the Motions are
about July 30, 2014, Petitioner filed a Petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No.
1.) On February 22, 2018, the Court denied the Petition and
denied a certificate of appealability. (See ECF No.
20.) On December 31, 2018,  Petitioner filed the instant
Motions. In support of his Motion to Appeal, Petitioner
states that he was unable to file a timely notice of appeal
because “the inmate assisting Petitioner was
transferred to another state with all the Petitioner's
paperwork and court opinions” and he is “not
educated [in] the complexities associated with . . . the
filing of an appeal of the denial of his habeas corpus
petition[.]” (ECF No. 24 at 3.)
timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
jurisdictional requirement.” See Bowles v.
Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 213 (2007). “[W]hen an
appeal is taken beyond the time set out in the Rule, an
appellate court is without jurisdiction to entertain and
decide it.” Id. Under Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), Petitioner was required to
file a notice of appeal “within 30 days” after
this Court denied his habeas petition. See Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Petitioner's habeas Petition was
denied on February 22, 2018, thus, his time to file a timely
notice of appeal elapsed on March 26, 2018. Petitioner filed
his Motion to Appeal on December 31, 2018, more than nine
months after the last day on which Petitioner could have
filed a timely appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5)(A) a court may
extend the thirty-day filing deadline if:
(i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time
prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires; and
(ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or
during the 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule
4(a) expires, that party shows excusable neglect or good
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A).
Petitioner did not file his Motion to Appeal within the
additional 30-day period that expired at the end of April,
2018. This Court therefore lacks the authority to extend the
time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(5)(A). Nor can this Court
reopen Petitioner's time to appeal under Rule 4(a)(6),
because his Motion to Appeal was not filed “within 180
days after the judgment or order [wa]s entered” nor has
Petitioner indicated that he “did not receive notice .
. . of the entry of the judgment or order sought to be
appealed within 21 days after entry.” Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(6)(A)-(C). Accordingly, the Court is without
jurisdiction to grant Petitioner's Motion to Appeal.
even if this Court did have jurisdiction to extend
Petitioner's period to file his notice of appeal, he
still fails to make the requisite showing of excusable
neglect or good cause under Rule 4(a)(5)(A). Petitioner's
only assertion in support of his Motion to Appeal is that the
person assisting in his habeas petition was moved out of
state. While the Court is sympathetic to Petitioner's
circumstances, this is insufficient to provide a basis to
extend Petitioner's appeal deadline. To initiate his
appeal, Petitioner was required to file a notice to appeal, a
one-page document which requires little more than the docket
number and date of the decision being appealed; it does not
require extensive legal research. For these reasons,
Petitioner's Motion to Appeal is denied. In addition,
because Petitioner was previously granted in forma
pauperis status in this case (ECF No. 7), no further
authorization from this Court is required for him to proceed
in forma pauperis on appeal. See Fed. R.
App. P. 24(a)(3). Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion to
proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 23), is
denied as moot. An appropriate Order follows.
 Although Petitioner's Motions were
received by the Court on January 8, 2019, the Motions are
dated December 31, 2018. (See ECF Nos. 23, 24.)
Under the federal prisoner mailbox rule, “a document is
deemed filed on the date it is given to prison officials for
mailing.” Pabon v. Mahanoy, 654 F.3d 385, 391
n.8 (3d Cir. 2011). The Court, affording Petitioner all
favorable inferences, finds that he filed the Motions on
December 31, 2018.
 Because the thirtieth day from
February 22, 2018, was a Saturday, Petitioner's notice of
appeal would have been timely filed on or before Monday,
March 26, 2018. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
 Together with Petitioner's Motion
to Appeal, is a Motion seeking the Assignment of Counsel.
(ECF No. 24 at 1.) Because the Court has already denied
Petitioner's Motion to Appeal, he fails to provide any
basis for why he should be assigned pro bono