Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:20-cv-08191
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Johnson v. Commissioner, Judge Netburn granted Johnson’s extension motion and accepted her late notice of appeal after remand.
Jolyne Nerissa Johnson and the Commissioner of Social Security; the ruling allowed Johnson’s late notice of appeal to be accepted.
What happened
In Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court had previously sent the case back to the Commissioner for more administrative proceedings. Jolyne Nerissa Johnson then asked for more time to file an appeal, and filed her notice of appeal on November 19, 2021.
Judge Netburn found that Johnson’s request was timely under the applicable rule because it was filed within 30 days after the appeal deadline. The court also found that her failure to file on time resulted from excusable neglect: she expected electronic notice, could not access her mail, and the mailed order was returned. The short delay was unlikely to prejudice the Commissioner or affect future proceedings, and the court found that Johnson acted in good faith.
Judge Sarah Netburn granted Johnson’s motion for an extension of time and accepted the notice of appeal she filed on November 19, 2021. The order also scheduled a telephone call for November 23, 2021.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-08191
- Sarah Netburn
- Nov. 22, 2021
Background
On September 10, 2021, the court remanded the matter to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings. Johnson later moved for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. Although the motion and notice were dated November 5, 2021, they were not filed on the docket until November 19, 2021.
Applicable Rule
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) allows a district court to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal when the motion is filed within the specified 30-day period and the party shows either excusable neglect or good cause. The opinion explains that good cause applies when the delay occurred without fault, while excusable neglect applies when the delay was at least partly attributable to the person seeking the extension. In deciding whether neglect is excusable, courts consider possible prejudice, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay and whether it was within the person’s control, and whether the person acted in good faith.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that Johnson’s deadline to file her notice of appeal was November 9, 2021, and that her motion was filed within 30 days after that deadline. Johnson said she had expected electronic notification of the court’s order and had been unable to access her mail. The order mailed to her on September 10 was returned, supporting her explanation. The court found that Johnson was partly responsible because she had not updated her mailing address, so her explanation did not meet the more demanding good-cause standard. It nevertheless found excusable neglect because the delay was slight, unlikely to prejudice the Commissioner or affect future proceedings, and understandable given Johnson’s self-represented status. The court also considered her statement that the loss of Social Security benefits contributed to the delay and found facts suggesting good faith.
Disposition
Judge Sarah Netburn granted Johnson’s motion for an extension of time. The court accepted the notice of appeal filed on November 19, 2021. The order also scheduled a telephone call for November 23, 2021.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.