Ngiendo v. Young Men's Christian Association of the USA
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-02454
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 4
In Ngiendo v. YMCA of the USA, Judge Provinzino granted plaintiff Quinn Ngiendo extra time to appeal after finding her traumatic brain injury and cognitive impairments excused her late filing.
Pro se (self-represented) litigants who miss a federal court appeal deadline due to medical or cognitive conditions may be affected by this ruling, as it illustrates how courts analyze requests to extend the time to file a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5).
What happened
In Ngiendo v. Young Men's Christian Association of the USA (Case No. 24-cv-2454), the court had previously dismissed plaintiff Quinn Ngiendo's lawsuit with prejudice on July 22, 2025, with judgment entered the following day. Ngiendo, who was representing herself, missed the 30-day deadline to file a notice of appeal, and on September 22, 2025, she asked the court for more time to do so, citing chronic pain, a traumatic brain injury, and related cognitive difficulties. The defendant did not oppose the request.
Federal court rules allow a district court to extend the deadline to appeal if the request is made within 30 days of the original deadline and the person shows either good cause or excusable neglect — meaning a good-faith reason for missing the deadline. The court first confirmed that Ngiendo's motion was filed just in time, because the 30-day extension window fell on a weekend, pushing the deadline to September 22, 2025, the same day the motion was received. The court then weighed factors such as the reason for the delay, potential harm to the other side, the length of the delay, and whether Ngiendo acted in good faith.
Judge Provinzino granted the motion. While the court noted that being busy with other lawsuits — even for a person without a lawyer — is not a valid excuse for missing a filing deadline, it found that Ngiendo's medical records credibly supported her claim of cognitive impairments that caused her to forget to file. The court determined that her health issues amounted to excusable neglect, that the delay was short, that the defendant would suffer little harm, and that there was no sign of bad faith. Ngiendo was ordered to file her notice of appeal no later than October 17, 2025.
The detailed version
- Ngiendo v. Young Men's Christian Association of the USA · No. 0:24-cv-02454
- John Tunheim
- Oct. 3, 2025
Background
Plaintiff Quinn Ngiendo filed this lawsuit against the Young Men's Christian Association of the USA. On July 22, 2025, the court dismissed Ngiendo's amended complaint with prejudice (meaning the dismissal was final and the same claims cannot be refiled). Judgment was entered on July 23, 2025.
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), a party wishing to appeal a civil judgment must file a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of judgment. Ngiendo's deadline was therefore August 22, 2025. She did not meet that deadline.
The Motion
On September 22, 2025, the Clerk's Office received Ngiendo's motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal, filed under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). In her motion, Ngiendo stated she believed judgment had been entered on August 24, 2025 — a date the court noted was incorrect. She also stated that she suffers from chronic pain and a traumatic brain injury that causes cognitive lapses affecting thinking, recall, and concentration, and that she was simultaneously involved in other pro se (self-represented) litigation at the time, which contributed to her forgetting to file the appeal on time. She submitted medical records from recent hospital visits in support of her claims.
The defendant did not oppose the motion.
Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) permits a district court to extend the deadline to file a notice of appeal if two conditions are met: 1. The motion for extension is filed within 30 days after the original appeal deadline. 2. The moving party demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause.
The court first determined whether the motion was timely. The original appeal deadline was August 22, 2025. Thirty days later fell on September 21, 2025, a Sunday. Because the deadline fell on a weekend, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(a)(1)(C) pushed it to the next business day, September 22, 2025 — the date the Clerk's Office received Ngiendo's motion. The court found the motion timely.
Excusable Neglect Analysis
The court applied the Eighth Circuit's framework from Gibbons v. United States, 317 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2003), treating the excusable neglect inquiry as an equitable one considering all relevant circumstances. The factors considered included: - The nature, credibility, and persuasiveness of the reason for the delay (the most important factor per Miller v. Minnesota, No. 08-cv-6555, 2009 WL 3062012 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2009)) - Potential prejudice to the opposing party - The length of the delay - The good faith of the moving party
On the reason for delay, the court rejected Ngiendo's involvement in other pro se litigation as a valid excuse, noting that pro se litigants are not excused from complying with procedural rules (Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526 (8th Cir. 1984)) and that even attorneys cannot rely on heavy caseloads. However, the court found Ngiendo's medical documentation — showing chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, sleep issues, and cognitive deficiencies — to be recent, specific, and credible evidence of excusable neglect. The court cited Weekley v. Jones, 927 F.2d 382 (8th Cir. 1991), and Hardesty v. Smith, No. 2:06-12835, 2007 WL 1647875 (E.D. Mich. June 4, 2007), as supporting authority for granting extensions based on mental health and cognitive conditions.
On the remaining factors, the court relied on Lowry v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 211 F.3d 457 (8th Cir. 2000), for the proposition that in Rule 4(a)(5) cases the delay is generally minimal and prejudice to the opposing party is typically negligible, given that the motion must be filed within 30 days of the original deadline. The court also found no evidence of bad faith.
Disposition
The court granted Ngiendo's motion. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C), any extension may not exceed 14 days after the order granting the motion is entered. Accordingly, Ngiendo was ordered to file her notice of appeal no later than October 17, 2025. The Clerk of Court was directed to email a copy of the order to Ngiendo.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.