Haygood et al v. Begue et al

Filing 287

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 279 Motion for Reconsideration re 278 Memorandum Order. Accordingly, this Court now DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) (Record Document 274) as untimely. Signed by Chief Judge S Maurice Hicks, Jr on 11/13/2018. (crt,ThomasSld, T)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SHREVEPORT DIVISION
RYAN HAYGOOD, ET AL.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-0335

VERSUS

JUDGE S. MAURICE HICKS, JR.

BRIAN BEGUE, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration.

See Record

Document 279. Defendants ask this Court to reconsider its Memorandum Order of July
10, 2018 (Record Document 278), which denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration and
granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiffs
oppose the instant motion. See Record Document For the reasons set forth below,
Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (Record Document 279) is GRANTED.
The parties do not dispute that March 22, 2018 was the deadline to file for
reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e). Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Reconsideration
under Rule 59(e) and 60(b) on March 23, 2018 – one day late under Rule 59(e). See
Record Document 241. This Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration under
both Rule 59(e) and Rule 60(b). See Record Document 278.
Plaintiffs had also asked the Court for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal
pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5). See Record Document 274.
The Court granted this motion, stating:
Here, the Court first notes that the Haygood Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration under Rule 60(b) was timely filed and likely tolled the time
delays for filing a notice of appeal. Notwithstanding, the facts and
circumstances presented by the Haygood Plaintiffs in the instant motion
constitute excusable neglect and/or good cause under Federal Rule of
Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5)(A)(ii). Thus, to the extent it is necessary, the

Motion for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal (Record Document
274) is GRANTED.
Record Document 278 at 2-3.

Defendants now seek reconsideration of this ruling

granting an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.
In its July 10, 2018 ruling, this Court was mistaken as to the effect of filing a Rule
60(b) motion, as the comments to the rule provide:
Note to Subdivision (b). Application to the court under this subdivision
does not extend the time for taking an appeal, as distinguished from the
motion for new trial.
F.R.C.P. 60, Advisory Committee Notes, 1937 Adoption (emphasis added). Moreover, in
its ruling, this Court failed to address that Plaintiffs’ motion to extend the time to file a
notice of appeal was untimely. Appellate Rule 4(a)(5) states that a party must move for
the extension of the time for filing a notice of appeal no later than 30 days after the time
prescribed by Rule 4(a) expires. 1 Here, the Court finds that the deadline to file a notice
of appeal was likely March 26, 2018, but no later than May 11, 2018. 2 Giving all benefit

1Appellate

Rule 4(a)(1)(A) provides:

In a civil case, except as provided in Rules 4(a)(1)(B), 4(a)(4), and 4(c), the
notice of appeal required by Rule 3 must be filed with the district clerk within
30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.
F.R.A.P. 4(a)(1)(A). Appellate Rule 4(a)(5)(A) provides:
The district 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.

2The

notice of appeal was likely due within 30 days of the Court’s granting of Defendant
Dies’ Motion to Dismiss. See Record Document 226. The Court entered Judgment on
Page 2 of 4

to Plaintiffs, any motion filed pursuant to Appellate Rule 4(a)(5) should have been filed no
later than June 11, 2018. See Record Document 279-1 at 12, 15-16. Plaintiffs filed their
motion for extension under Appellate Rule 4(a)(5) on June 27, 2018. Thus, such motion
was untimely under the plain language of Rule 4(a)(5).
The temporal limitation set forth in Appellate Rule 4(a)(5)(A)(i) is also codified in
28 U.S.C. § 2107. Section 2107 provides, in pertinent part:
(a)

Except as otherwise provided in this section, no appeal shall bring
any judgment, order or decree in an action, suit or proceeding of a
civil nature before a court of appeals for review unless notice of
appeal is filed, within thirty days after the entry of such judgment,
order or decree.

...
(c)

The district court may, upon motion filed not later than 30 days
after the expiration of the time otherwise set for bringing
appeal, extend the time for appeal upon a showing of excusable
neglect or good cause. In addition, if the district court finds -(1)
that a party entitled to notice of the entry of a judgment or
order did not receive such notice from the clerk or any party within
21 days of its entry, and
(2)
that no party would be prejudiced, the district court may, upon
motion filed within 180 days after entry of the judgment or order or
within 14 days after receipt of such notice, whichever is earlier,
reopen the time for appeal for a period of 14 days from the date of
entry of the order reopening the time for appeal.

28 U.S.C. § 2107 (emphasis added).

Thus, the relevant portion of Appellate Rule

4(a)(5)(A)(i) is codified in Section 2107(c) and is, therefore, a mandatory, jurisdictional
rule.

February 22, 2018. See id. Later, a voluntary stipulation of dismissal was entered on
April 11, 2018. See Record Document 259. Thus, giving all benefit to Plaintiffs, it is
possible to construe the latest date upon which the notice of appeal was due to be May
11, 2018.
Page 3 of 4

Plaintiffs rely on Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Sers. of Chicago, --- U.S. ---,
138 S.Ct. 13 (2017) to argue that district courts “may apply equitable consideration in
their enforcement” of the 30 day period for filing a motion under Appellate Rule 4(a)(5).
Record Document 282 at 4. However, the Hamer court addressed whether the district
court had the authority to grant a 60 day extension rather than a 30 day extension to file
a notice of appeal, not the actual motion under Appellate Rule 4(a)(5). Thus, Hamer is
distinguishable from the instant matter. This Court further notes that Hamer timely filed
her motion for extension under Appellate Rule 4(a). See Hamer, 138 S.Ct. at 18.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Court finds that reconsideration of its July 10,
2018 Memorandum Order is appropriate under Rule 59.

While such relief is

extraordinary, this Court believes its prior ruling was incorrect and that it lacked the
authority to grant Plaintiffs the right to file an out of time appeal when their motion for such
was filed after the deadline established by Appellate Rule 4(a)(1)(A) and (a)(5)(A).
Accordingly, this Court now DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension of Time to File a
Notice of Appeal Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) (Record
Document 274) as untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED, in Shreveport, Louisiana, this 13th day of November,
2018.

Page 4 of 4