1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9

10 THOMAS J. ROMANO, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 19-07172 WHA

12 v.

13 UNKNOWN INTERNAL REVENUE ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SERVICE (IRS) AGENTS; UNKOWN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 14 FEDERAL BUREAU OF NOTICE OF APPEAL 15 INVESTIGATION (FBI AGENTS; RICHMOND, CA POLICE 16 DEPARTMENT; UNKOWN RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS; and 17 DOES I to X, inclusive, 18 Defendants.

19 20 Plaintiff moves for a sixty day extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Plaintiff relies 21 on FRAP 4(a), which provided plaintiff thirty days from the February 13 entry of judgment to 22 file a notice of appeal. Plaintiff filed his motion by certified mail on April 28, seventy-five 23 days after the entry of judgment. 24 Plaintiff does not acknowledge the untimeliness of his motion or point to an applicable 25 exception. Instead, the motion merely states that an extension is necessary “due to the 26 Coronavirus causing delays and shutdowns in our society.” The requirement of timely notice 27 of appeal, however, is jurisdictional, United States v. Sadler,

(9th Cir. 1 2007), and no authority permits equitable exceptions to this rule. Bowles v. Russell, 551

(2007). 3 FRAP 4(a)(6) provides a statutory exception if plaintiff did not receive timely notice of 4 the entry of judgment. See also

. But plaintiff did receive timely notice by 5 first class mail the same day judgment was entered (Dkt. No. 34). 6 Accordingly, plaintiff's motion is DENIED. 7 8 IT ISSO ORDERED. 9 10 Dated: May 22, 2020. 1] af 4 f iene WI M ALSUP 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 14

15

16

il

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28