Gunn v. Annucci
- Philip Halpern
- 7:20-cv-02004
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Gunn v. Annucci, Judge Halpern denied Gunn’s late extension request and denied as moot his request to proceed without fees on appeal.
Darrell Gunn’s ability to pursue an appeal from the earlier judgment, and his request to proceed without paying filing fees on that appeal.
What happened
In Gunn v. Annucci, Darrell Gunn asked the court more than nine months after judgment to extend the deadline for filing an appeal. He also asked to proceed with the appeal without paying filing fees.
The court said its rules allow an extension only if the request is filed within the permitted period after the original appeal deadline expires. Gunn’s request was filed too late. The court also said that reopening the appeal period under another rule would not help because the request came more than 180 days after judgment.
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied the motion to extend the appeal deadline. He denied Gunn’s request to proceed without paying fees on appeal as moot and certified that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Gunn v. Annucci · No. 7:20-cv-02004
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
The court had dismissed the action in its entirety on April 29, 2021, under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and entered judgment that same day. The notice accompanying the judgment stated that a notice of appeal generally had to be filed within 30 days. It also explained that a party could request an extension within 60 days of judgment by showing excusable neglect or good cause.
On February 9, 2022, more than nine months after judgment, Gunn filed three items: a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal, a motion to proceed without paying filing fees on appeal, and a notice of appeal. The defendants filed a response on February 18, 2022.
Analysis
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(A) generally requires a notice of appeal to be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment. Under Rule 4(a)(5)(A), a district court may extend that deadline only if the motion is filed no later than 30 days after the original appeal period expires and the party shows excusable neglect or good cause. The court held that this rule does not permit an extension request filed more than 60 days after judgment. Because Gunn’s motion was filed more than nine months after judgment, the court denied it as untimely without deciding whether he had shown excusable neglect or good cause.
The court also considered whether the request could be treated as an application to reopen the appeal period under Rule 4(a)(6). That rule requires, among other things, that the motion be filed within 180 days after judgment or within 14 days after the movant received notice of judgment, whichever comes first. The court held that the request would still be untimely because it was filed more than 180 days after judgment.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern denied Gunn’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The court denied as moot Gunn’s related motion to proceed without paying filing fees on that appeal. It also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, so fee-free status was denied for an appeal from this order. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion sequences at Documents 26 and 27 and mail Gunn a copy of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.