Parker v. Department of Corrections
- Lewis Liman
- 1:20-cv-09408
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Parker v. Department of Corrections, Judge McMahon extended Parker’s appeal deadline, denied appeal fee status, and declined to reopen the case while the appeal was pending.
Devorn Parker’s appeal deadline and ability to reopen this action were affected. The court extended the time for his appeal, denied his request to proceed without paying appeal fees, and stated that it would reopen the case only if he withdrew the appeal and timely notified the court.
What happened
In Parker v. Department of Corrections, the court had dismissed the action after Parker failed to pay the filing fee or submit required forms. Parker later submitted an amended complaint, an appeal notice, and the required forms, explaining that a COVID-19 quarantine prevented him from receiving mail.
The court found good cause for Parker’s late appeal notice and granted his request for more time to appeal. It denied his request to proceed without paying appeal fees, directing him to seek that permission from the appeals court instead.
Judge McMahon ruled that the pending appeal prevented the district court from reopening the case. The court said it would reopen the case if Parker withdrew the appeal and notified the court within 30 days; the second amended complaint would then be screened under the federal statute governing certain fee-waived cases.
The detailed version
- Parker v. Department of Corrections · No. 1:20-cv-09408
- Lewis Liman
- Mar. 5, 2021
Background
The court had dismissed this action on December 17, 2020, because Parker had not paid the filing fee or submitted an application to proceed without paying the fee and a required prisoner authorization. The court entered judgment that day.
Parker gave a second amended complaint to prison officials for mailing on January 19, 2021, more than 30 days after the case was closed. The court received it on January 26. On February 1, the court directed Parker to submit the fee-waiver application and prisoner authorization and said it would treat the second amended complaint as a request to reopen the case if he submitted those materials within 30 days.
Before that order, Parker had given prison officials a notice of appeal and a request for more time to appeal. Those documents were docketed on February 3. Parker later filed the fee-waiver application and prisoner authorization on February 17.
Rulings
Under the federal appellate rules, a notice of appeal in a civil case generally must be filed within 30 days after judgment. A district court may extend that deadline when the request is timely and the party shows good cause or excusable neglect. Parker said that his housing unit had been quarantined because of the COVID-19 pandemic and that he had not received his mail. The court found good cause and granted Parker’s motion for an extension of time to appeal.
The court denied Parker’s motion for leave to proceed without paying fees on appeal. It stated that Parker could seek permission to proceed without paying those fees from the Court of Appeals.
The court also ruled that the appeal prevented it from reopening the action. The court explained that filing a notice of appeal gives jurisdiction over the appealed matters to the Court of Appeals and removes the district court’s control over those matters. It therefore could not reopen the case while Parker’s appeal from the dismissal was pending, even though he had submitted the required application and authorization.
The court stated that it would reopen the case if Parker withdrew his appeal in the Second Circuit and notified the district court within 30 days of the order. If the case were reopened, the second amended complaint would be screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The order did not itself reopen the case or decide the claims in the second amended complaint.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.