Filed: Dec. 31, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 31, 2017
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL JAMES O. BROWNING , District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal, filed October 30, 2017 (Doc. 110)("Motion"). 1 Plaintiff Simon Armijo has not replied to Defendants Village of Magdalena and Larry Cearley's Village of Magdalena Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal an
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL JAMES O. BROWNING , District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal, filed October 30, 2017 (Doc. 110)("Motion"). 1 Plaintiff Simon Armijo has not replied to Defendants Village of Magdalena and Larry Cearley's Village of Magdalena Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL
JAMES O. BROWNING, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal, filed October 30, 2017 (Doc. 110)("Motion").1 Plaintiff Simon Armijo has not replied to Defendants Village of Magdalena and Larry Cearley's Village of Magdalena Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal and Request for Clarification, filed November 13, 2017 (Doc. 112)("Response"). The time for Armijo to file a reply has passed.
In the Motion, Armijo requests an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, because he lost files because of a power outage, he is proceeding pro se, he finds the appeal complex, and he works construction to support his family. See Motion at 1. The Village Defendants argue that Armijo may not now timely appeal that order. See Response at 2. They request that the Court issue an order prohibiting Armijo from appealing the order dismissing the Village Defendants. See Response at 2. Alternatively, they request that the Court clarify whether the notice of appeal applies to the Village Defendants. See Response at 2.
The Court entered a Final Judgment in this case on September 30, 2017 (Doc. 109), and Armijo filed the Motion on October 30, 2017; therefore, Armijo timely filed the Motion. See Fed. R. App. P. Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(i). Although the Village of Magdalena and Clearly ("Village Defendants") oppose the Motion, they oppose it only insofar as it would allow Armijo to appeal the order dismissing Armijo's claims against them.2 See Response at 2. The Village Defendants essentially ask the Court to determine the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit's jurisdiction to hear Armijo's appeal. The Court declines to do so. The Court notes, however, that rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that, in a case involving multiple claims or parties, an order or decision adjudicating fewer than all of the claims or the rights of all of the parties "does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties." Therefore, having considered the Motion, the Court concludes that the Motion establishes good cause for an extension and will grant the requested extension.
IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal, filed October 30, 2017 (Doc. 110), is granted, and the deadline for filing a notice of appeal is November 29, 2017. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(c) (providing no extension may exceed 30 days after the prescribed time).