Ottah v. National Grid
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-08289
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Ottah v. National Grid, Judge Engelmayer denied Ottah’s extension motion because his appeal deadline had passed and he showed no excusable neglect or good cause.
Chikezie Ottah’s attempt to obtain more time to appeal was denied; National Grid opposed the request.
What happened
In Chikezie Ottah v. National Grid, Chikezie Ottah, who was representing himself, asked for more time to file an appeal. The request followed the court’s dismissal of his case after adopting a recommendation that National Grid’s motion to dismiss be granted.
The court found that Ottah had not shown that he filed his extension request within 30 days after judgment. It also found that his earlier objections did not pause the appeal deadline and that he had not shown a valid reason—such as excusable neglect or good cause—for missing the deadline.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied the motion for an extension of time. The court stated that Ottah’s notice of appeal was untimely and directed the clerk to close the pending motion and mail the decision to him.
The detailed version
- Ottah v. National Grid · No. 1:19-cv-08289
- Paul Engelmayer
- June 30, 2020
Background
Chikezie Ottah, representing himself, asked the court for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Before that request, Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger had recommended granting National Grid’s motion to dismiss the complaint in full for failure to state a claim. The district court adopted that recommendation after finding no clear error, and judgment was entered on May 20, 2020.
The Report and Recommendation gave the parties 14 days to file written objections and warned that failing to object on time would prevent appellate review. Ottah later sent a letter that the court treated as untimely objections. The court declined to reconsider its adoption of the recommendation. Ottah then filed the extension motion on June 25, 2020, along with a notice of appeal.
Reasoning
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 generally requires a notice of appeal in a civil case to be filed within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order. A district court may extend that deadline if the request is made within the applicable period or if the party shows excusable neglect or good cause.
The court could not conclude that Ottah’s motion was filed within 30 days after the May 20 judgment. Although the motion was signed and dated May 4, the court found that date inconsistent with the motion’s exhibits and with the date stamp on the judgment page attached to the filing. The court also noted that the judgment and notice of appeal rights had been mailed to Ottah.
The court considered whether Ottah’s earlier objections had paused the appeal period. It concluded that they did not. Although the objections were filed within 28 days of the court’s adoption of the recommendation, the letter did not request relief from the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which permits relief for specified reasons such as mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. The letter instead consisted of untimely objections to the recommendation.
The court also found that Ottah had not shown excusable neglect or good cause. Even if he had received the recommendation late, that did not explain his failure to timely appeal the district court’s adoption of it. The court also found no good cause for waiting to file a notice of appeal while the court considered his untimely objections.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer denied Ottah’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The court stated that Ottah’s notice of appeal was untimely, directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket 45, and directed that a copy of the decision be mailed to Ottah.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.