Williams v. Edwards et al

Filing 66

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 7/9/2012: The court grants Williams's motion for an extension 61 based on his showing of excusable neglect and deems his notice of appeal timely filed. As Mr. Williams has est ablished his indigency and there is no showing that his appeal is taken in bad faith, his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis 65 is also granted. (For further details see minute order.) [ For further details see written opinion.] Mailed notice (tg, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

Rebecca R. Pallmeyer

CASE NUMBER

10 C 1051

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

7/9/2012

Gregory Williams vs. Officer Edwards, et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

The court grants Williams’s motion for an extension [61] based on his showing of excusable neglect and
deems his notice of appeal timely filed. As Mr. Williams has established his indigency and there is no
showing that his appeal is taken in bad faith, his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis [65] is also
granted. (For further details see minute order.)

O[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Plaintiff Gregory Williams has filed a pro se notice of appeal from the court’s ruling granting summary judgment
in favor of the police officers who arrested him. The court entered its ruling on March 22, 2012, but Williams’s
notice of appeal was not submitted until May 18—or, under the “mailbox rule,” no earlier than May 15, the date
Williams signed his pleadings. The relevant rule allows thirty days for the filing of a civil appeal, but it also
empowers the district court to extend that deadline where the party seeking additional time shows excusable
neglect or good cause. FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(5).
The court finds that Williams has sufficiently demonstrated “excusable neglect.” Williams asserts that his lawyer
failed to notify him of the court’s summary judgment ruling until “late April of 2012” (Late Notice of Appeal
[55] at 2), at which time it was too late to timely file an appeal. Typically, counsel’s miscalculation of a filing
deadline, or other simple inadvertence, does not constitute excusable neglect. See, e.g., United States v. AlvarezMartinez, 286 F.3d 470, 473 (7th Cir. 2002). The excusable neglect standard, however, is not a “merciless”
standard but rather, an equitable one requiring consideration of the circumstances precipitating the delay.
Abuelyaman v. Ill. State Univ., 667 F.3d 800, 808 (7th Cir. 2011). Delay may be excused “‘even where the
reasons for the delay are not particularly compelling.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Brown, 133 F.3d 993, 997
(7th Cir. 1998)).
Im this case, Williams’s failure to meet the appeals deadline results, not from counsel’s simple carelessness, but
from counsel’s effective abandonment of his client. Counsel’s last submission to this court was dated August
9, 2011. The belated communication of the summary judgment ruling appears to have been counsel’s only other
act on behalf of his client; Williams has submitted all subsequent filings as a pro se litigant. In similar
cirumstances, the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s grant of an extension, even though the appellant filed
his notice of appeal two weeks late, because it appeared that counsel “may have ‘abandoned’” the appellant after
trial. United States v. Kaden, 819 F.2d 813, 816 (7th Cir. 1987); see also United States v. McKenzie, 99 F.3d 813,
10C1051 Gregory Williams vs. Officer Edwards, et al

Page 1 of 2

STATEMENT
816 (7th Cir. 1996) (finding excusable neglect warranting an extension where counsel left town and was
inaccessible during the appeals period, thereby “effectively abandon[ing]” his client). The court, therefore, grants
Williams’s motion for an extension [61] based on his showing of excusable neglect and deems his notice of
appeal timely filed. As Mr. Williams has established his indigency and there is no showing that his appeal is
taken in bad faith, his motion for leave to appeal in forma pauperis [65] is also granted.

10C1051 Gregory Williams vs. Officer Edwards, et al

Page 2 of 2