Filed: May 30, 2019
Latest Update: May 30, 2019
Summary: RULING JOHN W. DeGRAVELLES , District Judge . Before the Court is a Motion for Extension of Time to file Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal filed by Petitioner. (R. Doc. 21). Motions for extension of time to file notices of appeal are governed by Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pursuant to this Rule, "[t]he district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if" the appealing party (1) moves for the extension "no later than 30 da
Summary: RULING JOHN W. DeGRAVELLES , District Judge . Before the Court is a Motion for Extension of Time to file Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal filed by Petitioner. (R. Doc. 21). Motions for extension of time to file notices of appeal are governed by Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pursuant to this Rule, "[t]he district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if" the appealing party (1) moves for the extension "no later than 30 day..
More
RULING
JOHN W. DeGRAVELLES, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Motion for Extension of Time to file Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal filed by Petitioner. (R. Doc. 21).
Motions for extension of time to file notices of appeal are governed by Rule 4(a)(5) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Pursuant to this Rule, "[t]he district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal if" the appealing party (1) moves for the extension "no later than 30 days after the time prescribed ... expires" and (2) "shows excusable neglect or good cause." See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). The determination of "excusable neglect" is "`at bottom an equitable one, taking account all of the relevant circumstances surrounding the party's omission.'" Halicki v. Louisiana Casino Cruises, Inc., 151 F.3d 465, 468 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993)), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1005 (1999). "`These include ... the danger of prejudice ..., the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.'" Id. (quoting Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395).
Under the circumstances herein, especially considering the fact that the filing fee for appeal was received in a timely fashion and the apparent technical errors that occurred for which Petitioner was not at fault, the Court finds it equitable to grant an extension of time to Petitioner to file his notice of appeal. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion (R. Doc. 21) is GRANTED. Petitioner shall file his Notice of Appeal within ten days of this Ruling.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner's April 29, 2019 payment to the Clerk of Court for the Middle District of Louisiana in the amount of five-hundred and five dollars ($505.00) be deemed good and sufficient for his future filing of a Notice of Appeal in the above-captioned matter.
