Doe v. Trico Community School District No. 176 et al

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 44 MOTION for Extension of Time to File an Appeal filed by Jane Doe; denying without prejudice 45 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff filed by Jane Doe. Signed by Judge J. Phil Gilbert on 4/5/2012. (dka, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
JANE DOE, a Minor, by and Through Jane Doe 2, Her
Mother and Next Friend,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 11-cv-586-JPG-PMF
v.
TRICO COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 176, a
corporation, DENNIS SMITH, JOHN DENOSKY,
JERRY OHLAU and MICHAEL JENNINGS,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file
a notice of appeal (Doc. 44) and plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw from this case
(Doc. 45).
The Court addresses the motion for leave to withdraw first. The Court will deny the motion
(Doc. 45) without prejudice because it does not give the notice to the plaintiff as required by Local
Rule 83.1(g)(2).
As for the motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal, Federal Rule of

Appellate Procedure 4 sets forth the timing rules relating to notices of appeal. Rule 4(a)(1)
provides that, in a civil case, generally the notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of entry
of the order from which the appeal is taken. The Court may extend the time to file a notice of
appeal if:
(i) a party so moves no later than 30 days after the time prescribed by this Rule
4(a) expires; and
(ii) regardless of whether its motion is filed before or during the 30 days after the
time prescribed by this Rule 4(a) expires, that party shows excusable neglect or
good cause.

Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). If these conditions are met, the Court may extend the deadline the
longer of either (1) 30 days beyond the original 30-day period or (2) 14 days after the order
granting the extension. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5)(C). Even where both conditions are satisfied, the
Court has discretion to grant or deny an extension. See Garwood Packaging, Inc. v. Allen & Co.,
378 F.3d 698, 700 (7th Cir. 2004).
The Court entered amended judgment in this case on March 5, 2012. Thus, the plaintiff

had 30 days – until April 4, 2012 – to file a notice of appeal. The Court is therefore empowered
to extend the deadline by 30 days to May 4, 2012. The plaintiff argues that her counsel’s
impending withdrawal from this case justifies giving her time to find a new counsel to represent
her on appeal.
The Court will grant the motion for an extension of time (Doc. 44) and will extend the
time for filing a notice of appeal until May 4, 2012, the maximum extension this Court is allowed
to make. This should allow sufficient time for the plaintiff’s current counsel to give the
appropriate notice under Local Rule 83.1(g)(2) before again asking to withdraw from the case
and for the plaintiff to obtain new counsel or file a pro se notice of appeal.
In sum, the Court
•

GRANTS the plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal (Doc. 44)

•

EXTENDS the time for filing a notice of appeal until May 4, 2012; and

•

DENIES without prejudice the motion for leave to withdraw (Doc. 45).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 5, 2012
s/ J. Phil Gilbert
J. PHIL GILBERT
DISTRICT JUDGE

2