Mitchell v. City of Poughkeepsie School District
- Louis Stanton
- 1:19-cv-03879-LLS
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Mitchell v. City of Poughkeepsie School District, Judge Stanton denied a late appeal extension and denied the appeal-fee waiver request as moot.
Jasmine Mitchell, who was representing herself and seeking more time to appeal the dismissal of her action, could not obtain an extension or proceed without paying appeal fees through the denied request.
What happened
In Mitchell v. City of Poughkeepsie School District, Jasmine Mitchell, representing herself, asked for more time to appeal the dismissal of her case. The judgment was entered on September 23, 2019, and she filed her extension request on December 5, 2019.
Mitchell said she needed more time because she had been under a doctor’s care. The court found that her request came after the deadline for seeking an extension and that she had not alleged facts showing that the appeal period could be reopened because she did not receive notice of the judgment.
Judge Louis L. Stanton denied the request for an extension of time to appeal. He also denied as moot Mitchell’s request to proceed without paying court fees for the appeal.
The detailed version
- Mitchell v. City of Poughkeepsie School District · No. 1:19-cv-03879-LLS
- Louis Stanton
- Jan. 13, 2020
Background
Jasmine Mitchell, acting without a lawyer and on behalf of J.C.M., brought the action against the City of Poughkeepsie School District. The court had previously ordered her to file an amended complaint and later dismissed the action after she did not respond. Judgment was entered on September 23, 2019.
On December 5, 2019, Mitchell moved under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) for more time to file a notice of appeal. She stated that she needed an extension because she had been under a doctor’s care. She also moved to proceed without paying the required court fees for an appeal.
Analysis
A notice of appeal in a civil case generally must be filed within 30 days after judgment. Under Rule 4(a)(5), a district court may extend that deadline only if the request is filed within 30 days after the original appeal deadline and the party shows excusable neglect or good cause. Because judgment was entered on September 23, 2019, the court calculated that Mitchell’s original notice-of-appeal deadline was October 21, 2019, and that the deadline for requesting an extension was November 21, 2019.
Mitchell filed her motion on December 5, 2019, after the 60-day period had expired. The court concluded that it lacked authority to grant an extension under Rule 4(a)(5), even if she could show good cause.
The court also considered Rule 4(a)(6), which allows a court to reopen the appeal period when the party did not receive notice of the judgment, the motion is filed within the rule’s time limits, and reopening would not prejudice another party. The court stated that Mitchell did not allege that she failed to receive notice of the judgment within 21 days after it was entered.
Disposition
The court denied Mitchell’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. It denied as moot her request to proceed without paying court fees for the appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail her a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.