Savoy v. Davis — Court denied request to file an appeal seven years late

Unreported / Non-Citable

Background

Jason Charles Savoy filed a pro se habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in March 2019. After giving Savoy an opportunity to address the apparent limitations problem, the district court dismissed the petition as time-barred on August 5, 2019. Savoy did not appeal.

In September 2026, Savoy moved for permission to file a late notice of appeal and requested a certificate of appealability. He attributed the delay to being separated from his legal assistant because of prison-unit transfers and asserted that he had exercised due diligence, but he did not describe any steps he had taken to pursue an appeal.

The Court’s Holding

The court denied leave to file a late notice of appeal. Relief under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) was unavailable because Savoy sought an extension years after the rule’s 60-day outer deadline—30 days to appeal followed by a 30-day period in which an extension may be requested for good cause or excusable neglect.

The court also declined to reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6). The 2019 opinion and judgment had been mailed to Savoy’s address and were not returned, Savoy did not allege that he lacked timely notice, and his motion was filed well beyond the rule’s 180-day limit. The court further refused to issue a certificate of appealability because the motion supplied no basis to revisit its earlier conclusion that reasonable jurists would not debate the dismissal of the habeas petition as untimely.

Key Takeaways

• A district court cannot grant a Rule 4(a)(5) extension when the request is filed after the rule’s 60-day outer deadline.
• Reopening under Rule 4(a)(6) requires a timely motion and lack of timely notice; Savoy established neither requirement.
• Separation from a prison legal assistant did not overcome the governing appellate deadlines, particularly without facts showing diligent efforts to pursue an appeal.

Why It Matters

The order illustrates the strict time limits governing civil appeals, including appeals from federal habeas judgments. Even an asserted practical obstacle to pursuing an appeal cannot authorize a district court to extend or reopen the appeal period after Rule 4’s outside deadlines have expired.