Bradshaw v. City of New York

Background

Sherrina Bradshaw sued the City of New York and Captain Pelletier under the Americans with Disabilities Act. She alleged that the City discriminated against her because of an alleged disability and failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. She also alleged that Pelletier sexually harassed and discriminated against her because of her gender. Bradshaw later withdrew claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court previously granted that motion, denied Bradshaw’s request to file another amended complaint, and directed the Clerk to close the case. Judgment was entered on July 15, 2019. The judgment notice explained that a notice of appeal generally had to be filed within 30 days and included a blank notice-of-appeal form.

Bradshaw did not file her notice of appeal within 30 days. Thirty-five days after judgment, she filed without a lawyer a motion for an extension of time to appeal, a motion to proceed on appeal without paying filing fees, and a notice of appeal. She said she had met with several lawyers but could not find one she could afford, and that she needed additional time to learn how to represent herself.

Court’s analysis

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) permits a district court to extend the appeal deadline when the request is timely and the party shows either “good cause” or “excusable neglect.” The court explained that good cause applies when circumstances outside the party’s control caused the delay. It held that standard did not apply because Bradshaw had not shown that circumstances beyond her control prevented a timely filing.

The court instead applied the excusable-neglect standard. It considered the potential harm to the other side, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within Bradshaw’s control, and whether she acted honestly. The court emphasized that the reason for the delay is particularly important. It concluded that Bradshaw’s lack of a lawyer after judgment and need to learn the appeal process did not amount to excusable neglect. The court noted that the appeal notice explained the deadline and that the required form requested only basic information.

Ruling

Judge George B. Daniels denied Bradshaw’s motion for an extension of time to appeal. The court also denied her motion for leave to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal. The Clerk was directed to close the motions accordingly.