Johnson El v. NYC Administration Children Services
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-04352
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Johnson El v. NYC Administration Children Services, Judge Schofield denied the pro se plaintiff’s request to extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal.
Jeremiah Johnson El, the pro se plaintiff, whose request for more time to file a notice of appeal was denied; the judgment previously entered in favor of Defendants remained in place.
What happened
In Jeremiah Johnson El v. NYC Administration Children Services, et al., the court had previously granted Defendants’ summary-judgment motion and entered judgment in their favor. Johnson El, who was representing himself, asked for 30 to 90 additional days to file a notice of appeal because he was out of town on business and gathering more evidence.
The court explained that an extension was allowed only if Johnson El showed a legally sufficient reason for the delay, such as excusable neglect or good cause. The court found that travel and the desire to gather more evidence did not explain why he could not timely file a notice of appeal, which generally requires only a simple form. The court also noted that new evidence usually cannot be presented for the first time on appeal absent extraordinary circumstances.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied the motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Johnson El and close the motion docket entry.
The detailed version
- Johnson El v. NYC Administration Children Services · No. 1:19-cv-04352
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 25, 2021
Background
On January 28, 2021, the court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in their favor. The notice of the right to appeal advised the pro se Plaintiff that he had 30 days after judgment to file a notice of appeal.
On February 22, 2021, Plaintiff moved for an extension of 30 to 90 days. He said that he was out of town on business and was gathering more evidence for his claims.
Legal standard
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) permits a district court to extend the deadline for filing a notice of appeal only when the party shows excusable neglect or good cause. Excusable neglect applies when there is some fault that can nevertheless be excused; good cause applies when there is no fault. In deciding whether neglect is excusable, courts consider the reason for the delay and whether the delay was within the party’s reasonable control, along with possible prejudice, the length of the delay, and whether the party acted in good faith.
The court also noted that the more lenient treatment sometimes given to people representing themselves does not excuse compliance with procedural and substantive legal rules.
Analysis
The court found that Plaintiff’s motion was timely because he filed it before the deadline for filing a notice of appeal expired. However, the court concluded that he had not shown excusable neglect or good cause.
Regarding his business travel, Plaintiff did not explain why being out of town prevented him from filing a notice of appeal during the 30-day period. The court stated that filing a notice of appeal is a simple procedure requiring minimal effort and does not require specialized skills or an appellate lawyer.
Regarding the need to gather evidence, the court stated that reviewing the record is generally unnecessary before filing a notice of appeal. It also advised that the Court of Appeals generally will not consider new evidence presented for the first time on appeal unless extraordinary circumstances exist.
Disposition
Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail a copy of the order to the pro se Plaintiff and close Docket No. 78.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.