Blunt v. Perez
- Analisa Torres
- 1:14-cv-02333
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Blunt v. Perez, Judge Torres denied Blunt’s extension request and certificate of appealability because his appeal was untimely.
Samuel Blunt was denied more time to file an appeal and was denied a certificate of appealability; Ada Perez was the respondent.
What happened
In Blunt v. Perez, Samuel Blunt filed a notice of appeal, but the court could not tell which earlier order he intended to challenge. Assuming he meant the court’s April 18, 2019 order, the notice came 208 days later.
Blunt also asked for more time to appeal. The court said that request was filed too late and gave no reason showing a legally acceptable excuse or good cause for the delay.
Judge Analisa Torres denied the extension motion and denied a certificate of appealability, finding that Blunt had not made the required showing that a constitutional claim deserved further review. The clerk was directed to close the motion and mail the order to Blunt, who was representing himself.
The detailed version
- Blunt v. Perez · No. 1:14-cv-02333
- Analisa Torres
- Nov. 19, 2019
Background
Samuel Blunt filed a notice of appeal on November 12, 2019. The court stated that several orders had been issued in the matter and that the notice did not make clear which order Blunt intended to appeal. The court assumed he intended to appeal the most recent order, dated April 18, 2019.
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A), Blunt had 30 days to appeal from the judgment. The court calculated that he filed his notice of appeal 208 days after the April 18 order. Blunt also filed a motion for an extension of the appeal deadline.
Extension of Time
The court explained that Rule 4(a)(5)(A) allows an extension only if the motion is filed no later than 30 days after the appeal deadline and the party shows excusable neglect or good cause. The court found that Blunt’s motion was filed far more than 30 days after the deadline. It also found that the motion gave no reason for the late filing, much less a showing of excusable neglect or good cause.
The court therefore denied Blunt’s motion for an extension of time to appeal.
Certificate of Appealability
The court also considered whether to issue a certificate of appealability, which is required for a petitioner to pursue an appeal in this type of proceeding. The court referred to its earlier finding that Blunt’s motion and objections were “indecipherable.” It concluded that Blunt had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right had been denied, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
The court further stated that any appeal would be barred because the notice of appeal was untimely. It noted that an untimely notice of appeal can itself support denial of a certificate of appealability, and that the same time bar would apply if Blunt intended to appeal an earlier ruling.
The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability.
Disposition
The clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 37 and mail a copy of the order to Blunt, who was proceeding without a lawyer. The order was signed by Judge Analisa Torres.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.