FARMER v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF INDIANA

Filing 21

ENTRY - Farmer's motion to file late appeal was filed with the clerk within the grace period described above and sets forth circumstances establishing good cause for the requested extension. Accordingly, the motion to file late appeal [dkt 20] is therefore granted. The notice of appeal filed with the clerk on November 20, 2015 was timely. Copy to petitioner via U.S. Mail.Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 12/28/2015. (JLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

JAMES FARMER,
Petitioner,
vs.
SUPERINTENDENT, New Castle
Correctional Facility,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:15-cv-00397-TWP-DML

ENTR Y
James Farmer is a state prisoner who filed this action seeking a writ of habeas corpus. His
petition was denied and the action dismissed with prejudice because the Court concluded from the
pleadings and the expanded record that Farmer had not filed his habeas petition within the statute
of limitations prescribed by the federal habeas statute. Final judgment was issued on October 13,
2015. Farmer’s notice of appeal was filed with the clerk on November 20, 2015. His notice of
appeal reveals that it was placed in the prison mailing system on November 16, 2015. His notice
of appeal has been followed by his motion to file late appeal, filed with the clerk on December 9,
2015.
In a civil suit in which the United States or its officer or agency is not a party, a notice of
appeal must be filed within thirty days from the entry of judgment. 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a); Fed.
R.App.P. 4(a)(1)(A). Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5), the district court may
extend the time to file notice of appeal if a party so moves no later than thirty days after the original
deadline for the filing of notice of appeal and that party shows “excusable neglect or good cause.”
The advisory committee notes to the 2002 amendments state that Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(ii) was amended

to correct the misunderstanding of the Rule that separate standards applied based on when the
motion was filed. They do not. The advisory committee note explains that “[t]he good cause and
excusable neglect standards have ‘different domains.’” Id. (quoting Lorenzen v. Emp. Ret. Plan,
896 F.2d 228, 232 (7th Cir. 1990)). The relevant question is one of fault, as “[t]he excusable neglect
standard applies in situations in which there is fault; in such situations, the need for extension is
usually occasioned by something within the control of the movant.” Id. On the other hand, the
good cause standard “applies in situations in which there is no fault—excusable or otherwise.” Id.
Farmer’s motion to file late appeal was filed with the clerk within the grace period
described above and sets forth circumstances establishing good cause for the requested extension.
Accordingly, the motion to file late appeal [dkt 20] is therefore granted. The notice of
appeal filed with the clerk on November 20, 2015 was timely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 12/28/2015

Distribution:
JAMES FARMER
854529
NEW CASTLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
Inmate Mail/Parcels
1000 Van Nuys Road
NEW CASTLE, IN 47362
Electronically Registered Counsel