Graham v. Dr. James Koenig and Kathy Reid

Background

Plaintiff Alonzo J. Graham, a prisoner at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Rush City, Minnesota, brought this civil action against Dr. James Koenig and Kathy Reid. On September 30, 2025, Judge Provinzino adopted a Report and Recommendation (R&R) issued by United States Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko and dismissed Graham's claims with prejudice. Judgment was entered the same day.

Following that dismissal, Graham filed three post-judgment motions: (1) a motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal (ECF No. 259), and (2) two motions requesting free copies of certain documents from the docket that he said he needs to pursue his appeal (ECF Nos. 258, 260).

Motion for Extension of Time to Appeal

Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5), a district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if: (1) the motion is filed within 30 days of the original deadline, and (2) the moving party demonstrates excusable neglect or good cause.

Graham's original deadline to file a notice of appeal was October 30, 2025, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A). He filed his extension motion on October 27, 2025, making it timely.

On the question of good cause, the court applied the equitable balancing test from Gibbons v. United States, 317 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 2003), which considers factors including prejudice to other parties, the length of the delay, and the good faith of the moving party. The court identified the most important factor as "the nature, credibility and persuasiveness" of the reason for the delay, citing Miller v. Minnesota, No. 08-cv-6555, 2009 WL 3062012 (D. Minn. Sept. 18, 2009).

Graham's stated reason was that he has experienced significant delays in receiving materials from the Minnesota State Law Library — including a copy of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and copies of legal decisions — which he needs to prepare his appeal. He stated that such requests take a minimum of two to three weeks, reportedly due to mail delivery issues. The court declined to address Graham's unsubstantiated allegation that prison employees were interfering with his legal mail, but found his explanation about delays plausible given a documented history of mail delivery delays in this case (referencing ECF Nos. 63 and 244).

The court granted the extension, setting the new deadline at 30 days beyond the original deadline — through November 30, 2025, which is the maximum extension permitted under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(C). The court noted in a footnote that because November 30, 2025, falls on a Sunday, the deadline under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a) is effectively Monday, December 1, 2025.

Motions for Free Copies

Graham requested free copies of seven specific filings he made in this case: (1) a motion in limine (ECF No. 249); (2) two declarations in support of that motion (ECF Nos. 250–51); (3) a letter to the court relating to the motion (ECF No. 252); (4) a certificate of service for those filings (ECF No. 253); (5) his objections to the R&R (ECF No. 254); and (6) exhibits filed in support of his objections (ECF No. 255).

Graham stated he is indigent and cannot afford the associated printing fees. The court observed that these documents appear to be the handwritten originals Graham sent to the court, suggesting he either did not or was unable to retain copies before mailing them.

The court granted the motions, directing the Clerk of Court to mail copies of all seven documents — along with a current copy of the docket sheet — to Graham at his address of record.

Disposition

1. Graham's Motion for Extension of Appeal Deadline (ECF No. 259) — GRANTED; deadline extended 30 days through November 30, 2025 (effectively December 1, 2025). 2. Graham's Motions for Free Copies (ECF Nos. 258, 260) — GRANTED; Clerk directed to mail copies of ECF Nos. 249–255 and the docket sheet to Graham.