Smith-Burrus v. Banning Police Dept.
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-09320
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Smith-Burrus v. Banning Police Dept., Judge Swain denied Smith-Burrus’s request to extend her appeal deadline.
Alfreda Smith-Burrus was affected by the denial of additional time to appeal and the denial of permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
What happened
In Smith-Burrus v. Banning Police Dept., Alfreda Smith-Burrus, representing herself, asked for more time to appeal after the court dismissed her action because she did not pay the filing fee or submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees.
The court said the appeal notice was due by January 8, 2024, and that the request for more time was filed on time. But Smith-Burrus gave no explanation for missing the appeal deadline and did not show a legally acceptable reason for the delay.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the request for an extension. Judge Swain also ruled that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
The detailed version
- Smith-Burrus v. Banning Police Dept. · No. 1:23-cv-09320
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 19, 2024
Background
Alfreda Smith-Burrus brought the action against Banning Police Dept., Yonkers Police Dept., and Dept. of Corrections without a lawyer. The court had directed her either to pay the $402 filing fee or to submit an application to proceed without prepaying fees. After she did neither, the court dismissed the action on December 6, 2023, and judgment was entered on December 7, 2023.
Smith-Burrus filed a notice of appeal on January 11, 2024. She also moved under Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure for an extension of time to appeal.
Analysis
Rule 4(a)(1)(A) generally requires a notice of appeal to be filed within 30 days after judgment is entered. Rule 4(a)(5) allows a court to extend that deadline if the motion is filed within the permitted period and the party shows excusable neglect or good cause. The court calculated that the notice of appeal was due January 8, 2024, because the thirtieth day fell on a Saturday. It found that Smith-Burrus’s motion was timely, but she provided no explanation for failing to file the notice of appeal on time and therefore did not show excusable neglect or good cause.
Disposition
The court denied Smith-Burrus’s motion for an extension of time to file an 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 and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.